Stockton-On-Tees Borough Council v Latif: Admn 13 Feb 2009

The council appealed against a decision that the crown court had jurisdiction to extend the time for appeal against refusal of a private hire vehicle licence.
Held: The court did not have the jurisdiction it used: ‘The terms of the section 300 of the Public Health Act 1936 are, in my view clear. A fixed period of 21 days is given to bring an appeal. Parliament did not provide for an extension of time which it clearly could have done if that had been the intention. In addition Parliament made it mandatory that the document notifying the person of the decision should state the right of appeal and the time within which such an appeal might be brought. That, it seems to me, is a pointer to the importance of compliance with the time limit and would militate against any implied right of extending the time.’
Christopher Symons QC
[2009] EWHC 228 (Admin)
Bailii
Town Police Clauses Act 1847, Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 861, Public Health Act 1936 300, Civil Procedure Rules 3.1
Citing:
CitedVilnius City, the District Court of v Barcys Admn 22-Mar-2007
The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to apply the Rules to extend time to appeal against discharge of an extradition request. The notice of appeal was not filed (or served) within seven days.
Held: Latham LJ said: ‘I acknowledge . .
CitedProject Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority 28-Apr-1998
(High Court of Australia) ‘In our opinion, the Court of Appeal of New South Wales was correct in Tasker v Fullwood in criticising the continued use of the ‘elusive distinction between directory and mandatory requirements’ and the division of . .
MentionedVilnius City, the District Court of v Barcys Admn 22-Mar-2007
The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to apply the Rules to extend time to appeal against discharge of an extradition request. The notice of appeal was not filed (or served) within seven days.
Held: Latham LJ said: ‘I acknowledge . .
CitedRegina v Soneji and Bullen HL 21-Jul-2005
The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 February 2021; Ref: scu.293922