| Publisher Citation: | [2001] All ER (D) 445 (Jul) |
| Court: | Administrative Court |
| Judge: | Silber J |
| Representation | Geoffrey Robertson QC and Anthony Hudson (instructed by Bindman & Co) for the claimant. |
| David Pannick QC and Michael Fordham (instructed by Sheridans) for the defendant. | |
| Judgment Dates: | 31 July 2001 |
Catchwords
Judicial review - Delay - Reason for delay - Claimant complaining to Press Complaints Commission about long lens photographs - Press Complaints Commission rejecting complaint - Claimant instituting judicial review proceedings after three month time limit - Claimant submitting claim raising issues of substantial importance - Whether time limit subject to an overriding factor based on strength of case - CPR 54.5(1).
The Case
Rules on time limits for submitting an application could not be ignored solely if the argueability and significance of the claim constituted a reason for extending time. That would imply that the rules on the circumstances of extending the three-month time limit were subject to an overriding factor based on the strength of the claim.
Lexis®Library
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
