top of page

Evidence that the Judiciary is refusing to cure serious injustice

There are instances reported elsewhere where it was stated that the litigants failed to particularise their grounds to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in England and Wales for review or reconsideration. In those instances the petitions of the litigants were accepted by the Court of Appeal and thereafter dismissed for failure to provide particularisation of their arguments.


One reported example can be found in paragraph 36 of the judgment of Lord Justice Rix in Pope v Energem Mining (IOM) Ltd & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1043 which the relevant passage is:


"[The Litigant] had written to Maurice Kay LJ expressing reservations about Richards LJ having any role in connection with her application. Maurice Kay LJ had written in response to say that "as there is no particularisation of the asserted 'bias and prejudice', he does not think it appropriate to move the application to reopen from Richards LJ. If on consideration he thinks it inappropriate for him to determine the application, it will be transferred to someone else. In this jurisdiction many applications are renewed to a judge who previously refused them. It is not at all uncommon for him/her to change his/her mind."


In AB's cases there were overwhelming evidence demonstrating violation of the rule of law which were provided in so much detail but instead of the Court of Appeal to treat AB's cases so as to cure the injustice, the Court of Appeal refused the cases to be reviewed as was clearly accepted in the cited case above as well as both the Lord Chief Justice and the Head of Civil Justice refused to intervene.


You can read the conveyed messages to AB by clicking on the hyperlinks:



bottom of page