![CA-2025-001983 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1311](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_Sjvxvlx.png){kind=logo}
THE ISSUES
THE ISSUES
Against that background, the following issues arise:
Was the Judge wrong to conclude that an application to the Secretary of State to remove Palestine Action (i.e. an application to deproscribe under section 4) with an appeal to POAC if that application was refused, was not an adequate alternative remedy to judicial review?
Was Ms Ammori required to make any application for permission to appeal against the refusal of permission to apply for judicial review on grounds 1, 5, 6 and 7 within 7 days of the refusal of permission by the High Court in accordance with CPR 52.8?
If so, is it appropriate to extend time for Ms Ammori to apply for permission?
If so, should permission to appeal (or permission to apply for judicial review) be granted in relation to any or all of grounds 1, 5, 6 and 7 of the claim form as amended?
- Heading
- The Lady Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill CJ handed down the following judgment of the court
- THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
- THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND
- The Decision to Proscribe Palestine Action
- The issuing of the claim for judicial review and an application for interim relief
- The refusal of interim relief
- The hearing of the application for permission to apply for judicial review
- The Judge’s Order
- The Secretary of State’s appellant’s notice
- Ms Ammori’s respondent’s notice
- THE ISSUES
- THE FIRST ISSUE – ADEQUATE ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES
- Discussion
- The Present Case
- THE SECOND ISSUE – THE TIME LIMITS FOR APPLYING FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL
- Discussion
- THE THIRD AND FOURTH ISSUES – THE EXTENSION OF TIME AND PERMISSION
- Conclusions