Case No: A2/2012/0602,
A2/2012/1733
Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWCA Civ 121
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE VOS) 

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Tuesday, 29th January 2013
Before:

LORD JUSTICE KITCHIN

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

	PETERKIN	
Appellant	
	
- and -		

LONDON BOROUGH OF MERTON & ANR	

Respondents
	
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(DAR Transcript of 
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No:  020 7404 1400  Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Appellant did not appear and was not represented.
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
Lord Justice Kitchin: 

1.	This is an application by Mr Peterkin for permission to appeal against judgments and consequential orders of Vos J, respectively dated 16 November 2011 and 10 February 2012.  Permission to appeal was refused on the papers by Lewison LJ on 5 October 2012.  Mr Peterkin requested that decision be reconsidered at an oral hearing.  That oral hearing was, I understand, fixed with Mr Peterkin for 15 January 2013. Mr Peterkin did not appear at that hearing and it is my understanding that this court was given no notice in advance of the hearing that Mr Peterkin would not be attending, nor any explanation for any difficulty that he might have been experiencing.  Nevertheless, that being the first date fixed for the hearing, I decided to adjourn it to give Mr Peterkin one further opportunity to appear and make his application to this court.  

2.	The Civil Appeals office originally re-fixed the hearing for 6 February 2013.  However, almost immediately thereafter, having received a representation from the London Borough of Merton, the respondent, the date was changed and brought forward to today, 29 January 2013.  Mr Peterkin was informed by letter that today was indeed the day for the adjourned hearing and, as I understand it, he was in communication by telephone with the Civil Appeals office this morning in the course of which it became clear that he must have received that letter.  The hearing this morning was fixed for 10.30am but as a result of that telephone communication with the Civil Appeals office the time for the hearing was put back until 11am to give Mr Peterkin an opportunity to attend.  He lives, as I understand it, in South West London, and putting the time for the hearing back until 11am gave him ample opportunity to make his way here if he intended and wished so to do.  He has not, however, attended and we have received no indication since that telephone communication to which I have referred that he is on the way and needs a little further time to make his way here.

3.	Accordingly I am satisfied that it is appropriate to dismiss the applications by Mr Peterkin.  I would add that I have carefully considered the applications made by Mr Peterkin, the papers, the grounds of appeal and the various arguments that Mr Peterkin has made in his written documents and communications and I am entirely satisfied that the various grounds advanced by Mr Peterkin have no merit and that an appeal has no real prospect of success.  

4.	Accordingly the various applications which Mr Peterkin has made are refused.

Order:  Applications refused