Case No. UKUT-00281(IAC)

[1999] 2 AC 330. She accepted that the House of Lords, in the speech of Lord Slynn of Hadley (with whom the other Law Lords agreed), concluded that a timeliness issue, and in particular the issue of extending time, could not be considered at the substantive hearing. Lord Slynn said this: “If leave is given, then unless set aside, it does not fall to be re-opened at the substantive hearing on the basis that there is no ground for extending time under Order 53, R4(1). At the substantive hearing there is no ‘application for leave to apply for judicial review’ leave having already been given.” 16. Mrs Gray accepted that, in the light of this, it was not open to the Secretary of State to now take the point that the applicant’s claim was out of time and that time should not be extended. 17. That concession, in my judgment, disposes of this point. It is a matter of some regret that the issue of timeliness was not raised earlier in the proceedings and was only raised, in effect, in preparation for the substantive hearing after permission had been granted at the oral hearing. 18. I would simply add that, applying the approach to the issue of extending time set out in