A/2002/0993 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWCA Civ 1069
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
CIVIL DIVISION 
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
(His Honour Judge Previte QC
sitting as a Judge of the High Court) 
The Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London

Tuesday 16 July 2002 
Before:

LORD JUSTICE LATHAM 

- - - - - - - -

Between: 
CLAUDE RAPOSE
Claimant/Applicant 

and: 
THE LONDON BOROUGH OF WANDSWORTH 
Defendant/Respondent 

- - - - - - - -
Transcript prepared from the Steno Notes
of Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
190 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2HD
Tel:  0207 404 1400
- - - - - - - -
The Applicant appeared on his own behalf, assisted by Mr Y Khan
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented 
- - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Tuesday 16 July 2002 
1.	LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: Mr Rapose makes an application today for permission to appeal the consent order that was made as long ago as 7 October 1999. He has two formidable hurdles to overcome. The first is the delay, which is wholly unexplained. But more fundamentally, this is an attempt to appeal an order made by consent. Such an order cannot be appealed. An application can be made to set it aside: that has to be made to the court that made the original order. 
2.	Bearing in mind the fact that the underlying dispute relates to events which occurred in January 1989, and bearing in mind the further delay that has occurred since the judge made the consent order, it seems to me that the prospects of Mr Rapose being able to persuade a court to reopen this matter, even though the court would undoubtedly have jurisdiction to do so, must be remote in the extreme. I cannot see anything other than more expense, more court time and more, in the end, disappointment to Mr Rapose, being the result of any further applications in this case. 
3.	Mr Rapose must do what Mr Repose wishes to do. But there is reference to wisdom in the papers, and it seems to me that if he were wise, and if he were wisely advised, he would appreciate that the chances of being able to take this matter further really are not such as to justify the time, trouble and expense. 
4.	As far as this court is concerned, this application is dismissed.
ORDER: Application refused