C/2000/3415
C/2000/3146
Neutral Citation Number: [2001] EWCA Civ 259
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE                     
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)                  
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
(MR JUSTICE BLOFELD)
                                   Royal Courts of Justice
                                  Strand
                                  London WC2
 
                             Wednesday, 14th February 2001
B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE SCHIEMANN

‑and‑

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

WILLIAM GEORGE COLLEY
Applicant

‑ v ‑

THE COUNCIL FOR LICENSED CONVEYANCERS
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Telephone No: 020 7421 4040
Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MR HUNT (instructed by Strachan Visick Ltd, London W1G 9QD) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
The Respondent did not attend and was unrepresented
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

J U D G M E N T
Wednesday, 14th February 2000
1.	LORD JUSTICE SCHIEMANN: There are two applications for permission to appeal. The court proposes to adjourn to an inter‑parties hearing. It is clear now that this case raises complicated questions in respect of the powers of the Council of Conveyancers. Also the powers of the High Court and the powers of the Court of Appeal under the relevant statutes. Whether or not it should progress through a judicial review, or appeal pursuant to statute, the court cannot decide without the parties having addressed argument to us.
2.	It has become clear as we have seen Mr Hunt's skeleton argument before us and as elaborated in the course of exchanges with the court, that these cases raise rather complicated and difficult questions as to the powers of the Council for Licenced Conveyancers under the relevant statute, the powers of the High Court under the relevant statute and the powers of this court under the relevant statute, quite difficult questions as to whether one should proceed by way of judicial review or by way of appeal pursuant to the statute. It would be wrong for us to attempt to decide those questions with only one party present, and the granting of any leave to appeal is, arguably at any rate, a decision on some of those questions. That is why we have adjourned it.
3.	We have asked Mr Hunt to recast his skeleton argument so as to set out his position more clearly. We would ask him to do that within the next 48 hours.
(Adjourned; no order for costs).