C/01/0897
Neutral Citation Number: [2001] EWCA Civ 1865
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (ADMINISTRATIVE COURT)
(MR JUSTICE RICHARDS)

							Royal Courts of Justice
							Strand
							London WC2A 2LL

						Wednesday 21 November 2001

B e f o r e:

LORD JUSTICE SCHIEMANN

- - - - - -

T H E  Q U E E N
(ON THE APPLICATION OF CHAUDHRY ZIA ULLAH)

- v -

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

- - - - - -
(Computer Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street,
London EC4A 2AG
Tel: 020 7421 4040 Fax: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

- - - - - -
MR C MOLL (Instructed by Mr M Mirza, Walthamstow, London, E17 3AY) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.

The Respondent did not attend and was not represented.
- - - - - -

J U D G M E N T
1.	LORD JUSTICE SCHIEMANN: Before me is an renewed application for permission to move for judicial review in relation to a decision of Richards J. The background to the matter is set out in his judgment and there is no advantage in my repeating it because I have come to the conclusion that it would be right to grant this application. 
2.	Richards J, for reasons which he set out in his judgment, came to the conclusion that it is arguable that there had been an injustice in the would-be appellant's case but that he had waited too long before commencing his judicial review proceedings. 
3.	The applicant was evidently served with a notice that he was an illegal entrant in September 1995. I have not seen the notice with which he was served, but the reasoning appears from a document which first came to his present solicitor's knowledge this year. Meanwhile, the delay in challenging the decision was, first, because he applied for asylum and, secondly, because he had remarried. Those two matters and the consideration of the immigration authorities were not completed until February 2000. He was then told in short terms that he had heen considered an illegal entrant. He sought help from his MP who made representations on his behalf but those were rejected. 
4.	I have been told by Mr Moll that, so far as he can tell, the report of 14 September 1995, which indicates the Home Office thinking, was not disclosed to him. On that basis, which I take from Mr Moll, it seems to me that the judge was in error in saying that this is not a situation where he should extend time for the case to be examined by the Administrative Court. The delay since February 2000 seems, if the version of events given to me by Mr Moll be accurate, to be attributable to the fact that the immigration authorities did not provide the applicant with the reasoning which they gave once the proceedings had been started. 
5.	On that basis I think it is right for the matter to be examined by the Administrative Court. I am by no means persuaded that that examination will necessarily lead to a result in Mr Ullah's favour and he should not necessarily assume that but I do consider there is something to be considered. 
Order: Public Funding Assessment.