Judicial review Permission to apply - Court of Appeal refusing permission following refusal by single judge - House of Lords having no jurisdiction to hear appeal from Court of AppealR v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex parte Eastaway: HL (Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Clyde and Lord Millett): 2 November 2000The single judge refused the applicant permission to apply for judicial review of decisions of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

The applicant applied to the Court of Appeal, which in March 2000 again refused permission.

The applicant petitioned the House of Lords for leave to appeal.

He accepted that if Civil Procedure Rules, Pt 52, as inserted by the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2000 with effect from 2 May 2000, had been in force at the time of the Court of Appeal's decision the House would have had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

He was granted leave to appeal so that the House could determine whether it had jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal.Matthew Collings and Rabinder Singh (instructed by Burton Copeland) for the applicant.

Jonathan Crow and Richard Gillis (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State.Held, dismissing the appeal for want of jurisdiction, that the House had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against a refusal of leave to appeal by the Court of Appeal against the decision at first instance; that the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal was exclusively appellate in nature and recourse to the Court of Appeal following refusal of permission to apply for judicial review by the judge did not involve an exercise of original jurisdiction by that court but was in the nature of an appeal; that the applicant had therefore needed permission to appeal against the refusal of permission to apply for judicial review by the single judge; that, although the applicant had not expressly sought permission to appeal from either the single judge or the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal had to be taken to have impliedly refused permission to appeal when dismissing his application for permission to apply for judicial review; and that, consequently the petition was seeking to challenge not only the Court of Appeal's refusal of permission to apply for judicial review but also the Court of Appeal's implicit refusal of permission to appeal; and that, accordingly, the House of Lords had no jurisdiction to entertain it.

(WLR)