C/01/1496/A
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWCA Civ 917
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE                          
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
TO SHOW CAUSE WHY APPLICATION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
  
                                    Royal Courts of Justice
                                    Strand
                                    London WC2
 
                          Wednesday, 17th April 2002
B e f o r e :

DEPUTY MASTER JOSEPH

- - - - - - - -

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF
BADIBANGA

- v -

EMPLOYMENT SERVICE

- - - - - - - -
(Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes
of Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Telephone No: 0207-421 4040
Fax No: 0207-831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - -

THE CLAIMANT did not appear and was not represented.

- - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
1.	DEPUTY MASTER JOSEPH: This is an application by Mr. Badibanga for permission to reinstate an earlier application for permission to appeal a decision to refuse permission to claim for judicial review. Mr. Badibanga acts in person. He sought permission to apply for judicial review in the Administrative Court of a decision of the Employment Service. That was refused on the papers, initially by Scott Baker J. The application was then renewed to Richards J, who refused the application at an oral hearing at which Mr. Badibanga was not present on 26th April of last year.
2.	It appears that the underlying nature of the claim relates to Mr. Badibanga's complaint that he was excluded from the new deal scheme by a job centre. In his judgment, Richards J referred to there being proceedings in the Employment Tribunal which have been determined and that that in many ways was the underlying cause of his complaint.
3.	Mr. Badibanga first filed his application for permission to apply for judicial review in the Civil Appeals Office on 5th July of last year. That application was already some two months or more out of time. He was asked to provide bundles in support but did not do so. The matter was placed in the dismissal list on 5th September 2001 when an order was made by Master Venne that, unless the applicant provided a set of bundles in support of his application within 14 days, then it would stand dismissed. The bundles were not provided by the due date and the application therefore stood dismissed. On 26th September Mr. Badibanga applied to reinstate his application, and with the application on that occasion he filed a set of bundles. He also sought and obtained a direction that the transcript of the judgment of Richards J of 26th April last year be provided to him at public expense. There was some delay in obtaining the judgment. A copy was eventually supplied to Mr. Badibanga on 26th February 2002. He was advised at that stage, on perusal of the judgment, that the court, in addition to the documentation that he had filed, would also need two further documents which were referred to in Richards J's judgment, namely a copy of the Employment Tribunal's decision, which is referred to in paragraph 6 of Richards J's judgment, and an acknowledgement of service in the Employment Tribunal proceedings, which is referred to in paragraph 9. Mr. Badibanga has not provided these documents, and it is in these circumstances that the matter comes to be listed before me today.
4.	At this point I should also make reference to a further application which Mr. Badibanga had made under Court of Appeal reference 2002/0201. That is an application for permission to appeal and an extension of time in which to appeal from a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal dated 27th November 2001, in proceedings brought by Mr Badibanga against Otley College. It is impossible to say whether those Employment Tribunal proceedings are the same proceedings to which Richards J referred in his judgment. Mr. Badibanga has failed to enlighten us as to the position in that regard. He is not in attendance before me today.
5.	In relation to those allied proceedings in relation to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, Mr Badibanga likewise did not provide a set of bundles in support of that application. The matter was listed in the dismissal list on 27th March, when an order was made by Deputy Master Di Mambro requiring compliance within 21 days. That is by today.
6.	The order I intend to make in relation to the current application before me today is that, unless within 21 days the applicant has provided a copy of the Employment Tribunal's decision referred to in paragraph 6 of the judgment of Richards J of 26th April 2001, and a copy of the acknowledgement of service referred to in paragraph 9 of that judgment, then the application shall stand dismissed without further order. I do not think that it is appropriate in the particular circumstances of this case, on an ex parte application, to include within my order any provision so far as costs are concerned. What I would ask the associate to do, in addition to sending Mr. Badibanga a copy of today's order, is to send him a further copy of the judgment of Richards J, highlighting paragraphs 6 and 9 where reference to these missing documents is contained.