AC-2024-BHM-000217 - [2025] EWHC 2510 (Admin)

By an application notice dated 26^th August 2025, the Claimant applied for permission to argue a further ground which was actually two new grounds: (1) insufficient information; (2) incorrect basis of assessment. On reading the papers, it appeared to me that the proposed grounds were entirely without merit and far too late. In the event, at the very outset of the hearing, Mr James told the court that the application was not pursued so I say nothing further about it.

However, Mr James did have an application pursuant to CPR Rule 32.5(3) for Mr Khan to give oral evidence in relation to the submissions which he would have made to the justices, that being a new matter which had arisen since his witness statements were served.

The context was that Mr James had included two paragraphs in his skeleton argument on behalf of Mrs Khan which did exactly that: they explained what Mr Khan “could (and most likely would)have made”. Those points were, in summary:

Mr James submitted that these points arose from the Interested Party’s position on s31(2A) Senior Court Act 1981. He wished to rebut the submission that the same decision would be highly likely in any event. Ms Lean opposed the application. She submitted that the s31(2A) point had been a part of the Interested Party’s case since the outset and it appeared in both the Summary Grounds of Defence and Detailed Grounds of Defence.

I refused that application because such evidence added nothing. I accept that points of the type which Mr James suggests could have been made to the justices are points which would be likely to be made. I did not need to hear evidence to that effect and it was not proportionate to open up still more factual issues in the course of this judicial review.

I have, nevertheless, gone on to consider Mr James’ points when I come to consider s31(2A) of the 1981 Act, below.