Kaur, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

MASTER MEACHER: The appellant's notice was filed on 31 December 2014. The Applicant, Mrs Majinder Kaur, is unrepresented.

A bundle of documents was filed on 31 December 2014. The Civil Appeals Office notified Mrs Kaur that the bundle did not contain all the documents required by the Practice Direction which supplements Part 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules, PD 52C paragraph 27, and that further documents had to be filed by 6 February 2015.

On request, an extension of time was granted until 27 February on the basis that Mrs Kaur was awaiting the transcript of judgment. On 26 February, Mrs Kaur filed amended grounds, but not the outstanding documents. A further extension of time was granted until 25 March to enable Mrs Kaur to file the amended grounds in proper form and the outstanding documents required for the bundle, including the transcript of judgment.

On 25 March, Mrs Kaur requested a further extension of time on the basis that she was still awaiting the transcript of judgment. An extension of time was granted until 5 June. The additional documents, however, were not filed within this extended deadline.

The matter was, therefore, placed in the dismissal list. Mrs Kaur was notified that the matter would be dismissed with costs if the bundle defects were not rectified by 4.00 pm on 17 July 2015 or sufficient reasons provided in writing why that could not be done.

On 3 and 17 July, Mrs Kaur wrote to the Civil Appeals Office stating that she was "in the process of receiving transcript of judgment and skeleton argument from my barrister (sic)" and requesting an extension of time. Mrs Kaur enclosed a copy e-mail dated 16 July 2015 from the transcriber, Ubiqus, advising her to complete a transcript request form. Nearly 7 months had elapsed since the appellant's notice was filed and Mrs Kaur had still not completed the necessary request form for a transcript of judgment.

In these circumstances, I was unwilling to remove the matter from the dismissal list without documentary evidence that Mrs Kaur had ordered and paid for the transcript. The Civil Appeals Office wrote to Mrs Kaur on 31 July giving her until 10 August to comply with these directions and confirmed that, in the meantime, the matter remained at risk of dismissal. No response was received from Mrs Kaur and therefore, on 21 August, more than one month after the deadline in the dismissal list letter, I dismissed the application with costs.

On 27 August, Mrs Kaur faxed a letter to the Civil Appeals Office requesting an oral hearing. She stated that she had not received the letter on 31 July from the court. We are here today at the oral hearing that was requested in that letter.

Mrs Kaur has been assisted today by a friend, Razwana Ayub. She has told me that, in fact, Mrs Kaur did receive the letter of 31 July. The explanation that has been provided at the hearing today for the long delay in obtaining the transcript is that Mrs Kaur is in person, did not understand the procedures and had contacted a barrister who was unable to assist.

It is incumbent upon applicants to comply with the Rules and Practice Directions. Litigants in person should make enquiries about how to comply if they are not familiar with the procedures. Mrs Kaur has had ample time to do so. Nearly 9 months has elapsed since the appellant's notice was filed. I consider that insufficient reasons have been provided today to justify setting aside my dismissal order.

I understand that an application was made to Ubiqus on 16 July to request a transcript of judgment. It appears that Ubiqus did not receive that request and that a further request was made, I think, on 17 September. We do not know whether Ubiqus has received that. We do not know whether that has been processed, but certainly Mrs Kaur has not obtained confirmation from them and has not paid for the transcript.

In these circumstances, my dismissal order shall stand.