References: [2009] EWHC 228 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Christopher Symons QC
Ratio: The council appealed against a decision that the crown court had jurisdiction to extend the time for appeal against refusal of a private hire vehicle licence.
Held: The court did not have the jurisdiction it used: ‘The terms of the section 300 of the Public Health Act 1936 are, in my view clear. A fixed period of 21 days is given to bring an appeal. Parliament did not provide for an extension of time which it clearly could have done if that had been the intention. In addition Parliament made it mandatory that the document notifying the person of the decision should state the right of appeal and the time within which such an appeal might be brought. That, it seems to me, is a pointer to the importance of compliance with the time limit and would militate against any implied right of extending the time.’
Statutes: Town Police Clauses Act 1847, Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 861, Public Health Act 1936 300, Civil Procedure Rules 3.1
This case cites:
- Cited – Vilnius City, the District Court of v Barcys Admn ([2007] 1 WLR 3249, [2008] 1 All ER 733, Bailii, [2007] EWHC 615 (Admin))
The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to apply the Rules to extend time to appeal against discharge of an extradition request. The notice of appeal was not filed (or served) within seven days.
Held: Latham LJ said: ‘I acknowledge . . - Cited – Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority ((1998) 194 CLR 355, [1998] HCA 28, Austlii, (1998) 153 ALR 490, (1998) 72 ALJR 841, (1998) 8 Legal Rep 41)
(High Court of Australia) ‘In our opinion, the Court of Appeal of New South Wales was correct in Tasker v Fullwood in criticising the continued use of the ‘elusive distinction between directory and mandatory requirements’ and the division of . . - Mentioned – Vilnius City, the District Court of v Barcys Admn ([2007] 1 WLR 3249, [2008] 1 All ER 733, Bailii, [2007] EWHC 615 (Admin))
The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to apply the Rules to extend time to appeal against discharge of an extradition request. The notice of appeal was not filed (or served) within seven days.
Held: Latham LJ said: ‘I acknowledge . . - Cited – Regina v Soneji and Bullen HL (Bailii, [2005] UKHL 49, House of Lords, Times 22-Jul-05, [2005] 3 WLR 303, [2006] 1 AC 340, [2006] 1 Cr App R(S) 79, [2006] Crim LR 167, [2005] 4 All ER 321, [2006] 2 Cr App R 20)
The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 31 August 2019
Ref: 293922
The post Stockton-On-Tees Borough Council v Latif: Admn 13 Feb 2009 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.