[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 >> Bandegani, R (on the application of) v Chester County Court [2002] EWCA Civ 962 (18 June 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/962.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 962

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
(SIR OLIVER POPPLEWELL)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Tuesday, 18th June 2002

Tuesday, 18th June 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE BROOKE: This is an application by Mr Bandegani for permission to appeal against an order of Sir Oliver Popplewell made on 15th March 2002 in the Administrative Court when he refused Mr Bandegani's application to reinstate an application for permission to apply for judicial review which had been refused by Collins J at a hearing in court on 23rd November 2001. Mr Bandegani said that he was not aware of the hearing date before Collins J. Those were the circumstances in which he successfully had the matter reinstated for the consideration of Sir Oliver Popplewell. Sir Oliver Popplewell refused to reinstate on the ground that there was no power to consider judicial review against the Chester County Court and there was no prospect of success on the merits in any event.
2. The dispute between Mr Bandegani and his former landlady, who is desperately ill with cancer, has been reviewed by this court on a previous occasion. When I was sitting with Tuckey LJ on 26th July 2001 ([2001] EWCA Civ 1274) I set out the previous history of the matter. To take the matter shortly, on 11th August 2000 an order was made in the Chester County Court that four pending actions should be consolidated and that they should be listed before the designated civil judge on 26th September 2000. Mr Bandegani was given notice that the judge would consider whether to prohibit the bringing of further proceedings without the leave of the court in relation to his tenancy at 10a Dee Banks.
3. On 26th September 2000 Judge Edwards QC gave judgment for Mrs Paulson on her claim for just over £3,500 arrears of rent. As Mr Bandegani had given up possession, Judge Edwards was not concerned with that, and he dismissed three other actions brought by Mr Bandegani as having no real chance of success. He made an order that no further action should be commenced by Mr Bandegani about this tenancy without the leave of the court, and that any such application should be referred to him.
4. Today Mr Bandegani has shown me Judge Edwards's judgment. He said this:

"There are now two further actions, 03300, in which Mr Bandegani claims that he was evicted and harassed out of the premises, but despite requests for further information to support some of the extreme allegations being made in that case none has ever been forthcoming, and having had the occasion to see Mr Bandegani and to see Mrs Paulson I do not think that Mr Bandegani would persuade any court that he had been harassed out at that date."

5. He said that insofar as Mr Bandegani appeared to rely on one particular incident, there was no merit in it at all and if he wanted to flesh out his allegations about earlier this year he had had ample opportunity to do so. He said:

"In my view it is another nonsense application by Mr Bandegani brought out of sheer spite and I dismiss it as having no real chance of success.

Finally there is another action which I have added to the list today, 003661, that Mr Bandegani was evicted custody unlawfully in August of this year. Since in June he had made it quite clear that he had left and was not coming back. That allegation is nonsense as well with no chance of success and I dismiss that as well."

6. The judge then turned to the question of what he regarded as continuing harassment through litigation. It appears that Mr Bandegani had left court by that stage and had said he was going to make a complaint. The judge said Mr Bandegani was welcome to take whatever course he felt appropriate.
7. On 24th October Judge Edwards QC refused Mr Bandegani permission to appeal. He said the remaining actions were meritless. They constituted an abuse of process and the harassment of a sick elderly claimant who was only seeking to be paid the rent due. The judge said of Miss Paulson that she did not qualify for remission of fees or legal aid, she was elderly and gravely ill with cancer, she had been forced into court over 20 times by Mr Bandegani in connection with this one tenancy, and she had no hope of recovery of costs. He said that Mr Bandegani was abusing the process of the court out of spite, or to trade off these claims against Mrs Paulson's legitimate claims.
8. Judge Edwards made an order in which he dismissed the three actions as having no real chance of success under Part 24. He gave judgment for the money claim and he made this further order, Mr Bandegani having been given notice the judge would consider whether to make an order prohibiting further actions without his leave. The appropriate process of challenging that order was by appeal to the High Court. Thomas J refused permission to appeal on paper and MacKinnon J refused permission to appeal in court.
9. In the bundle of documents which Mr Bandegani presented to this court he has not produced any document to show the detail of these proceedings. He sought to tell me today that he had not appealed against paragraph 4 of Judge Edwards's order. But he had full opportunity to appeal it then and that was the process provided by Parliament for his appealing it. If for any reason he thought that he had any hope of getting an extension of time for seeking permission to appeal if he did not appeal it back in the autumn of 2000, then his route would be to a High Court Judge.
10. However that may be, on 14th March 2001 he sought to bring yet further proceedings against Mrs Paulson in relation to the matters which Judge Edwards had dismissed as having no real chance of success the previous September. The potential claim form was referred to Judge Edwards who refused permission to issue it, pursuant to the power under his court order the previous September. He said it was patently vexatious and essentially a matter which had been disposed of or could have been dealt with previously.
11. On 26th March he refused permission to appeal. He said that this was spiteful, Mrs Paulson was desperately ill with cancer, all Mr Bandegani's previous actions had failed and this was just another meritless step in the campaign. Thomas J refused permission to appeal on paper. He refused an extension of time for appealing and on 11th May he refused Mr Bandegani's application for an adjournment of the hearing of his reconsideration of his decision in open court and he refused permission to appeal. It was in those circumstances that this court on 26th July 2000 entertained his application for permission to appeal against Thomas J's refusal of an adjournment and refusal of permission.
12. Most litigants would have thought that that was the end of the road. The matter had been fully canvassed at county court level by a judge who had ample experience of this litigation. Parliament has entrusted the policing of disputes between landlord and tenant to the county court and Judge Edwards QC is the designated civil judge of the local county court. The matter has been considered twice by High Court judges on appeal and has now been to the Court of Appeal once. But nothing daunted, Mr Bandegani now sought to apply for judicial review in the Administrative Court to quash orders which had been made in the county court with full jurisdiction in connection with these proceedings. He also sought to quash paragraph 4 of Judge Edwards's order of 26th September.
13. I have seen the judgment of Burton J when he adjourned the matter to be heard between the parties. Burton J thought that there might be something in a point that res judicata or judicial estoppel did not operate, but he said, in a hearing in which Mr Bandegani appeared in person that he did not know how much of the previous documentation was in front of him, and there might be jurisdictional difficulties for Mr Bandegani, given that these were orders of the county court susceptible to appeal and that all his routes of appeal had been exhausted.
14. The matter was then listed before Collins J. For reasons which are not clear to me Mr Bandegani either was not given notice or maintains he was not given notice of the hearing. Collins J would have read the papers before he went into court. He refused permission to apply for judicial review. Burton J appeared to have given him a fair wind, and he complained to the Administrative Court Office that he had not been given notice of the hearing before Collins J. The matter was restored to Sir Oliver Popplewell who has immense experience of the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court. He said, correctly, that there was no power to consider a judicial review against the Chester County Court in relation to the matter where there was a perfectly satisfactory right of appeal which Mr Bandegani had sought to exercise on two separate occasions. He said there was no prospect of success on the merits in any event.
15. Mr Bandegani now seeks permission to challenge Sir Oliver Popplewell's order, and (out of time) Collins J's order in this court. In my judgment Sir Oliver was correct. Mr Bandegani has sought to rely on authorities relating to the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court. Those authorities are a very long way away from the facts of the present case where there is an appeal to the High Court available against the orders to which Mr Bandegani took exception, and he either availed himself of that opportunity unsuccessfully in the High Court, or for reasons which I do not understand he did not seek permission to appeal paragraph 4 of Edwards J's order in the High Court. The way to challenge that order is unquestionably not by way of judicial review in an Administrative Court. The jurisdictional position is completely clear. For these reasons I refuse permission to appeal.
(Application refused; no order for costs).