C/2001/2578
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWCA Civ 99
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE                                 
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE CRANE)
							Royal Courts of Justice
							Strand
							London WC2A 2LL

							Thursday 31 January 2002
B e f o r e:

LORD JUSTICE BUXTON

- - - - - -

THOMAS BROXSON
Claimant/Applicant

- v -

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR THE SOCIAL SECURITY
Defendant/Respondent
- - - - - -
(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)
- - - - - -

The Applicant appeared in person.

The Respondent did not attend and was not represented.
- - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
1.	LORD JUSTICE BUXTON: This is a renewed application by Mr Thomas Broxson for permission to appeal against a decision of Crane J on 14 November 2001. The matter before Crane J was a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review of a decision of Mr Commissioner Levenson, dated 8 March 2001, not to review his earlier refusal dated 30 January 2001 of permission to appeal against the decision of the Social Security Appeal Tribunal. 
2.	The matter was originally considered on paper by Munby J in August 2001. He refused permission to appeal. Mr Broxson, as was his right, was dissatisfied with that and appeared in person before Crane J. He was dissatisfied with Crane J's decision. He now applies to this court.
3.	Mr Broxson has represented himself and has complained to me about the absence of legal representation. I have carefully read what he has submitted in writing, the decision underlying his complaint and the decision of Commissioner Levenson, which is the subject of these proceedings. He has addressed me at some length. 
4.	The background to the matter is well set out in Crane J's judgment. I would simply summarise it as follows. At one time Mr Broxson was in receipt of income support. In 1997 an adjudicating officer made a decision that he had received an overpayment because it was alleged he had for some part of that time been working as a coach or bus driver. Mr Broxson appealed, as was his right, to the Social Security Appeal Tribunal. That hearing was held on 11 October 1999. At the start of that hearing, as Mr Broxson has explained to me and as is recorded in the decision of the Appeal Tribunal, Mr Broxson requested an adjournment. He says that was because he thought he was to be represented by a legal rights adviser. However, that gentleman either did not attend or conducted himself in a way that Mr Broxson considered was unsatisfactory. In the event, Mr Broxson decided that he would leave the hearing and it proceeded thereafter in his absence. The Appeal Tribunal decided the matter against Mr Broxson. 
5.	Mr Broxson then contends that he did not receive the decision of the tribunal and, therefore, was not in a position to appeal against it as he wished to do. It appears to have been accepted before the judge below that, although Mr Broxson had not been present when the Social Security Appeal Tribunal announced his decision on 11 October 1999, he fairly shortly thereafter understood the substance of its decision. That is reinforced by a letter that he has shown me, written on his behalf by the Walworth One-Stop Shop (operated by the London Borough of Sutton Strategic Services) on 29 October 1999 to the tribunal service at Sutton, saying that it was understood that a decision had been made by the tribunal in Mr Broxson's absence and asking that there should urgently be forwarded a copy of the full decision to enable Mr Broxson to consider his options. 
6.	The tribunal did not produce its full decision until 22 February 2000. It sets out its reasons in some detail. Mr Broxson says he never received that document because it appears to have been sent to the person who the tribunal thought was advising him, but in fact was not Mr Broxson's adviser. Whether or not that was the case, Mr Broxson says it was not passed on to him and he did not receive the papers until 20 October 2000, one year after the tribunal decision. Mr Broxson promptly made application for permission to appeal. It is correct that he did not apply, as he should have done, to a Chairman of the Tribunal but appears to have gone straight to the Commissioner. I give no weight to that, any more than the judge did. 
7.	The Commissioner, Mr Levenson, declined to extend the time for applying. He said: 
“The claimant attended the tribunal hearing and knew what the decision was.”. 
8.	Mr Broxson says he did not attend the tribunal hearing, but it is the case that he was aware of the decision. Mr Levenson continues:
“Even if he did not receive the full statement sent to him on 22 February 2000, he consulted several advisers and had plenty of opportunity to query this. The delay in making the application is, in the circumstances is, in the circumstances, inordinate.” 
9.	Mr Broxson asked Mr Levenson to review that decision and the Commissioner refused. 
10.	So far as judicial review is concerned, the question is whether Mr Levenson's reasons were outside the limit of the discretion conferred on him. It is quite clear to me, as it was clear to Crane J, that it was open to him to take the view that he did. As he pointed out, Mr Broxson had the benefit of advisers. He has already demonstrated how he went to the One-Stop Shop, and it was simply unreasonable for him not to pursue the matter further when he had already indicated through his advisers on 29 October 1999 that he wanted to consider what steps he should take next. There is, therefore, no basis upon which Mr Broxson can complain about Mr Levenson's decision and Crane J was correct so to find. 
11.	There is an additional difficulty for Mr Broxson, upon which it has not been necessary for me to hear him and which it was not necessary for Crane J to consider. When Munby J refused permission on paper, he pointed out that the application for judicial review was out of time; it expired on 13 June 2001. The substantive decision Mr Broxson seeks to review was made on 30 January 2001 and the renewed decision on 8 March. In respect of both those decisions Mr Broxson was late in putting in his judicial review application. He explains that he has consulted various people about how he should proceed, but gives no indication that he was misled by any of them as to the timing of judicial review, should he be minded to follow that course. Even if Crane J had been wrong (which he was not) on the point that he decided against Mr Broxson, judicial review would not in any view event be appropriate in this case. 
12.	In those circumstances this application is refused. 
Order: Permission to appeal refused.