[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Weddle v South Tyne Social Security Appeal Tribunal [2002] EWCA Civ 372 (22 February 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/372.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 372

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL
THE DECISION TO REFUSE PERMISSION TO
APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Friday, 22nd February 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE SCHIEMANN: Before the Court there is an application to appeal the judgment of Mr Justice Maurice Kay given on 5th September 2001. He refused permission to apply for judicial review. What Mr Weddle seeks to challenge - in the application for judicial review - is a decision of a Social Security Appeal Tribunal which he says was wrong. The proper course for appealing decisions of the Social Security Appeal Tribunal is to go to the Court of Appeal. That is what Mr Weddle sought to do. He appeared in front of Lord Justice Robert Walker on 19th January 2001, some nine months or so before he appeared in front of Mr Justice Maurice Kay. He put before the Lord Justice what the Lord Justice described as an application for permission to appeal. The Lord Justice deals .....
2. THE APPLICANT: I did not.
3. LORD JUSTICE SCHIEMANN: You must not interrupt me.
4. THE APPLICANT: It is in the notes.
5. LORD JUSTICE SCHIEMANN: I have a transcript of that. The Lord Justice then set out his understanding of Mr Weddle's complaint and, at the very end, indicates that he regards it as right for him to refuse permission to appeal on grounds which he - the Lord Justice - regarded as having no prospect of success. He dismissed the application for permission to appeal.
6. Faced with that, but still wanting a forum in which he could challenge the decision of the Social Security Appeal Tribunal, as I understand it, Mr Weddle started these proceedings and, effectively, failed to get off first base because Mr Justice Maurice Kay refused to get personally involved in the details of the merits of any challenge. He said this matter had already been dealt with by Lord Justice Robert Walker and that, in general, the Administrative Court was not the right forum for an appeal but the Court of Appeal was. That particular route had been blocked.
7. Before me, Mr Weddle, it appears, has been helped by a lady called Miss L Rayne, who describes herself as coming from the Litigant in Person Society, but is not, as I understand it, qualified as a solicitor. She has given him such help as she is able. She has presented in front of me something called a presentation. She has put in front of me a letter and a statement of truth from Mr Weddle upon which he relies. The letter is addressed to Lilian Rayne, but sets out what he feels about the matter. He clearly feels the judges have served him badly. Very early on Mr Justice Turner evidently refused permission to move for judicial review on the papers, the decision which Mr Weddle describes as idiotic. There is then a reference to Mr Justice Maurice Kay. He then says that the decision of Lord Justice Robert Walker was corrupt because he had not fully understood the points sought to be made by Mr Weddle. He says that Mr Justice Maurice Kay appeared to be lacking elementary legal knowledge and the matter has not been helped by the transcribers corrupting the transcript.
8. I have looked at the presentation which has been prepared by Miss Rayne, and it is extremely difficult to understand the points that she is there seeking to make. The essence of the matter is that he feels that he has not had a chance to challenge further the decision of the tribunal of which he complains. As it seems to me, the decision of Mr Justice Maurice Kay, that, in substance, this is not an appropriate matter to be dealt with by way of judicial review because Parliament has prescribed that the appropriate procedure is to go to the Court of Appeal, and that in any event the Court of Appeal has already looked at it and decided that Mr Weddle's case should fail, is a decision which is manifestly right.
9. In those circumstances this application for permission to appeal the decision of Mr Justice Maurice Kay is refused.
Order: Application refused