RE:-Statutory Instrument 2012 No 2038 and Attorney General Versus Jones (1990) 1 WLR 859 on Page 863, Section 119 of the Equality Act 2010 Duty of Candour

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee made this Rhyddid Gwybodaeth request to Government Legal Department

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

Gwrthodwyd y cais gan Government Legal Department.

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

Dear Government Legal Department,

I, Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee and on behalf of My Wife, Children, Sisters and Brothers do hereby request your attention that:-

1. You have a copy of The Statutory Instrument 2012 No 3028, Say Documents are no Longer Exempt Information after a period of 20 Years.
The Documents before 1988 are no Longer Exempt Information.

2. The Public Records Office Act 1958, There was a Period of 30 Years which has now been reduced to a period of 20 Years.
The Former Prime Minister The Late Baroness Thatcher had made a statement that there was Disquiet in the Law Society.
Any Other Person can say the words: Deliberate Concealment, Mistake or Omission.

3. You are aware of the Judgments under Section 23 (g) Fraud or Mistake and Section 38 of the County Courts Act 1984 in the United Kingdom.

4. There is Section 114 and 119 of the Equality Act 2010,
As any County Court can make any Order which could be made by the High Court-
Judicial Review

There are no Judicial Review Forms in the County Court, when are the forms going to be issued in the County Court.

5. You do have a Copy of the Law Report R V Lancashire County Council Ex-P Huddleston [1986] 2 AII ER 941
that a public authority defendant in Judicial Review proceedings has a duty of candour and co-operation so as to assist the Court in understanding its decision-making process and deal with the issues fairly. It should conduct litigation with its cards face upwards. This is based on the Concept that it acts in the Public Interests, and not merely to protect a private, Commercial Interest.

Have you not breached the Duty of Candour by failing to disclose the List of Authority.

6. You do have copies of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, The Date when this Act had been enacted and came into force.
Since on the 19th June 2003 when the Solicitor General Harriet Harman QC or another Officer on her behalf had authorized the Application for a Section 42 of the SCA 1981 Order against Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee.

7. You have been provided with the decision of Dunoon Developments Ltd Versus The Secretary of State and Poole District Council which was decided in the Court of Appeal in the Year 1992.

8. The Legal Services Ombudsman Office in Manchester has been abolished, Who is now liable and Responsible for the Tort Action against the Legal Services Ombudsman and other Officers.

9. Which was the Highest Court in the United Kingdom on the 14th May 2003 or 27th January 2003, was it the Judgment given in the Court of Appeal in the Month of May 1999,
Or the Judgment given in the Court of Appeal on the 14th December 1998 and the House of Lords Judgment on the 20th July 2000 in Arthur J S Hall Versus Simmons where it was ordered that Advocates have no Immunity whether Civil or Criminal Proceedings.

10. There is the Treasury Solicitors Act 1876 Section 1. The Treasury Solicitor can sue and can be sued.
Since you have changed the Name to Government Legal Department,
Can You provide a copy of the Statutory Instrument issued by the Minister for the Civil Service,
Since the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, The Parliament had created the Crown Prosecution Services DPP who shall be responsible for the Criminal Proceedings.

11. The Treasury Solicitor had instructed the Barrister Samantha Broadfoot in the Case of Ewing Versus DPP in the Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Since there are two Divisions of the Court of Appeal-
One is Civil and the Other is Criminal.
Why have you not informed the Lord Chancellor about Section 53 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.

12. In a Criminal Cause or Matter, there are no Court Fees to be paid except on the Crown Side-
Since Section 42 (3A) of the SCA 1981 applies to Criminal Proceedings.

13. There is a Judgment given on the 22nd July 2005 before than Mr Justice Park.
That I could make applications in the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords for a period of two Years.
Since the Counsel-Barrister was misleading the Court which does amount to Contempt of Court.
The RSC Order 52 has now been changed to the CPR 81 Rules.

Why is the Order dated 22nd July 2005 not published on the Treasury Solicitors or the Government Legal Department.

14. The Crime and Courts Act 2013, this has made some changes.
Some copies from the Parliament Act had been faxed to the Treasury Solicitors,
Section 29 (4) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
There are no forms in the County Court, when are this going to be issued on the advice from the Government Legal Department.

14. The Order made in the Court of Appeal on the 25th July 2003 in Bhamjee Versus David Forsdick, Rueben Taylor, David Elvin QC, James Mauruci, Robert Walton and The Treasury Solicitors,
and Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee versus The First Secretary of State (Statutory Demand Notice for Costs Order in the CO/163/2000 Proceedings)
The Power of the Chancellor to appoint a Judge had ended when the Section 42 of the SCA 1981 Order had been made,
As The Constitutional Reform Act 2005, does require the Consent of the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales.
If you can provide and furnish a copy of the Authorization by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales.

Yours faithfully,

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

FOI, Government Legal Department

Dear Mr Bhamjee

As previously stated on 12 May 2014 I consider that this email is substantially similar to previous requests from you and I am not therefore obliged to provide you with a response to any further requests of this nature which are exempt from disclosure under section 14(2) of the Act (repeated requests). I have also made clear to you in previous responses that I consider such requests have no useful purpose, are manifestly unreasonable and would therefore fall to be exempt information pursuant to section 14(1) of the Act (vexatious requests).

Please note that I will not respond to any further such requests.

If you are unhappy with the level of service you have received in relation to your request you may ask for an internal review within two months of the receipt of this response. If you wish to do this you should contact me at the above address. It will help ensure that your complaint is properly considered if when requesting an internal review you also set out the reasons why you are unhappy with the service you have received.
If you are not content with the outcome of an internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane

Yours sincerely,

Paul Woods
DRO, FOI/DPA Co-ordinator, Head of Library Services
Operations, Government Legal Department

One Kemble Street, London WC2B 4TS
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7210 3045
[email address]

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Gadawodd Mr Janik anodiad ()

In (4) Mr Bhamjee states:

"4. There is Section 114 and 119 of the Equality Act 2010,
As any County Court can make any Order which could be made by the
High Court-
Judicial Review

There are no Judicial Review Forms in the County Court, when are
the forms going to be issued in the County Court. "

- - - - - - -

Equality Act 2010 c.15 at s.119

states: "(1) This section applies if a county court or the sheriff finds that there has been a contravention of a provision referred to in section 114(1)."

s.114 (1) states: "A county court or, in Scotland, the sheriff has jurisdiction to determine a claim relating to—

(a) a contravention of Part 3 (services and public functions);

(b) a contravention of Part 4 (premises);

(c) a contravention of Part 6 (education);

(d) a contravention of Part 7 (associations);

(e) a contravention of section 108, 111 or 112 that relates to Part 3, 4, 6 or 7."

However this refers to the law described in the Equality Act 2010. It does not apply to laws outside the documented scope of the Equality Act 2010. Unlike 'normal' Judicial Reviews (which start at the Admin Court, part of the Queens Bench Division of the High Court), if one has a grievance relating to the Equality Act 2010, one can seek a legal re-examination of that matter by a County Court instead of having to waste time and energy and money on going along the often daunting trip to the Royal Courts of Justice, Stand, WC2.

Nothing in my brief glance at the Equality Act 2010 gives a County Court the ability to conduct a 'normal' Judicial Review. Hence no forms at County Courts because the Judicial Review aspect is related to proceedings in a County Court about the Equality Act 2010.

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site . Find out more .