Illingworth, R. (on the application of) v Leeds City Council

On 15 February 2011 I heard a renewed application by Mr Illingworth in person for permission to appeal against the decision of Langstaff J dated 29 July 2010. He refused permission to claim judicial review. On 17 November 2010 Buxton LJ refused to grant permission to appeal.

At the conclusion of the oral hearing on 15 February I adjourned the application to give the respondent council an opportunity to send written representations to the court as to why Mr Illingworth should not have his costs back and why he should not be given permission to appeal.

The reasons for the order are set out in the transcript of the ex tempore judgment. I indicated that there would be no further hearing. The adjourned application would be decided on the basis of the written representations in order to avoid further costs.

On 28 April 2011 the Civil Appeals Office received written submissions from the Council. As predicted, the Council opposes the application for permission to appeal.

I have also received a CD and a letter from Mr Illingworth dated 2 May 2011 in which reference is made to new information released by the Council and which contains criticisms of the Council’s conduct. He asks for observations in the court’s final decision on his application.

I accept the Council’s submission that the appeal on the substantive issue would be purely academic. The Council has conceded access to the working file and Mr Illingworth has obtained the documentation which he wanted by using the Freedom of Information Act. There is no real prospect of persuading a full Appeal Court, which is short of time for deciding actual disputes, to hear an appeal with a view to issuing general guidance on the matters raised by Mr Illingworth. He has already obtained the documents he wanted. It is inappropriate for the court to comment further on the appeal or on the additional matters raised in Mr Illingworth’s letter of 2 May.

On the matter of costs the Council has taken the economic decision to pay back the costs (£1925) received from Mr Illingworth. In those circumstances it is undesirable to comment on the rival submissions on costs and it is unnecessary to make a decision or order on that point.

The only court order needed is refusal of the application for permission to appeal.

I make no order for costs, as the Council has stated in writing to the court that it will pay back to Mr Illingworth the costs received from him. There is no reason to believe that the Council would go back on that decision.