expressly subject to the duty to reconsider in the light of the evidence or Defendant’s new information. If this shows that permission might well have been refused then the presumption of funding ceases to apply. If the Defendant has conceded all or part of the claim then the Claimant should consider whether the application has become academic, and if so whether the court should nonetheless be invited to continue to hear the claim. The court has power to do so if it is in the public interest. Typically that might arise where: “for example (but only by way of example) when a discrete point of statutory construction arises which does not involve detailed consideration of facts and where a large number of similar cases exist or are anticipated so that the issue will most likely need to be resolved in the See R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p [1999] near future”. A.C. 450, at 456-7 - concerning an appeal. See R. (on the application of Zoolife International Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2007] EWHC 2995 (Admin), Silber J for the same principles applied to a first instance claim; R. (on the application of Raw) v Lambeth LBC [2010] EWHC 507, Stadlen J. The obligation to keep the proceedings under review applies throughout the case and not only on receipt of the evidence see for example R (Nkongolo Defendant’s – Tshikangu) v Newham London Borough Council [2001] EWHC Admin 92 failure to – inform the court that the case had become academic. November 2011 11 King’s Bench Walk
expressly subject to the duty to reconsider in the light of the Defendant’s evidence or new information. If this shows that permission might well have been refused then the presumption of funding ceases to apply. If the Defendant has conceded all or part of the claim then the Claimant should consider whether the application has become academic, and if so whether the court should nonetheless be invited to continue to hear the claim. The court has power to do so if it is in the public interest. Typically that might arise where: “for example (but only by way of example) when a discrete point of statutory construction arises which does not involve detailed consideration of facts and where a large number of similar cases exist or are anticipated so that the issue will most likely need to be resolved in the near future”. See R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p [1999] A.C. 450, at 456-7 - concerning an appeal. See R. (on the application of Zoolife International Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2007] EWHC 2995 (Admin), Silber J for the same principles applied to a first instance claim; R. (on the application of Raw) v Lambeth LBC [2010] EWHC 507, Stadlen J. The obligation to keep the proceedings under review applies throughout the case and not only on receipt of the Defendant’s evidence – see for example R (Nkongolo Tshikangu) v Newham London Borough Council [2001] EWHC Admin 92 – failure to inform the court that the case had become academic. November 2011 11 King’s Bench Walk