The court was asked whether the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, exercisable by way of judicial review, extends to such decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) as are not amenable to any form of appeal. Both Tribunals had been established as superior courts of record.
Held: Cart’s application failed. The applications of U and XC succeeded. Judicial review is available against the decisions of the Upper Tribunal, but only in exceptional circumstances: ‘SIACA s.1(3) and TCEA s.3(5) cannot be construed as excluding the judicial review jurisdiction from SIAC and UT respectively, whatever the historic scope of the expression ‘superior court of record’. SIAC is in principle amenable to judicial review only for any excess of jurisdiction. The court examined the history and justification of the new tribunals structure. Built into the system was the idea that the Upper Tribunal should offer the effective equivalent of judicial review of decisions of the First Tier Tribunals.
Laws LJ said ‘The tribunal system is designed to be so far as possible a self-sufficient structure, dealing internally with errors of law made at first instance and resorting to higher appellate authority only where a legal issue of difficulty or of principle requires it. By this means serious questions of law are channelled into the legal system without the need of post-Anisminic judicial review.’ and ‘Let it be supposed that a review of past cases, and the evolution of our courts since the Curia Regis of King William I, demonstrate that the prerogative writs have not run to superior courts of record and indeed that the expression ‘superior courts of record’ has consistently been used by judges and commentators to refer to courts not amenable to the writs. Does it follow that the bare designation by Parliament of an institution as such a court, as has been done by SIACA s.1(3) and TCEA s.3(5), excludes the judicial review jurisdiction? I think not.’
‘if the litigant has reached the end of the appeal road, he should not generally be allowed a fresh start down a different track marked judicial review.’
Owen J, Laws LJ
[2009] EWHC 3052 (Admin), [2010] PTSR 824, [2010] 2 FCR 309, [2010] 1 All ER 908, [2010] 2 WLR 1012, [2009] STI 3167, [2010] STC 493
Bailii
Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 1(3), Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 3(5), Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – RC v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions UTAA 15-Apr-2009
. .
Cited – A and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 19-Feb-2009
(Grand Chamber) The applicants had been subjected to severe restrictions. They were foreign nationals suspected of terrorist involvement, but could not be deported for fear of being tortured. The UK had derogated from the Convention to put the . .
Cited – Rex v Berkley and Bragge 1819
Orders of justices of peace, made in pursuance of the Excise laws, may be removed by certiorari: and the words ‘party, person,’ andC. in the Act of 23 G 2, C 18, do not include the Crown; therefore a certiorari, on the motion of His Majesty’s . .
Cited – Rex v Cheltenham Commissioners QBD 1841
A statute provided that any decision of the Quarter Sessions as to the levying of certain rates was to be ‘final, binding, and conclusive to all intents and purposes whatsoever’, and that no order made in that connection ‘shall . . be removed or . .
Cited – Regina v Medical Appeal Tribunal ex parte Gilmore; Re Gilmore’s Application CA 25-Feb-1957
The claimant had received two injuries resulting in his total blindness. He sought an order of certiorari against the respondent who had found only a 20% disability. The tribunal responded that its decision, under the Act was final.
Held: In . .
Cited – Ex parte Bradlaugh QBD 1878
A section in an Act of Parliament read: ‘and if . . the magistrate or justices shall be satisfied that such articles, or any of them, are of the character stated in the warrant and that such or any of them have been kept for any of the purposes . .
Cited – Regina v His Honour Judge Sir Donald Hurst, ex parte Smith QBD 1960
The County Court Judge had directed the removal from the electoral register the names of a number of persons who were not party to the proceedings before him. Motions were brought in the Divisional Court for an order of certiorari to quash his . .
Cited – Sivasubramaniam v Wandsworth County Court, Management of Guildford College of Further and Higher Education and Another CA 28-Nov-2002
Having had various claims made in county courts rejected, the applicant was then refused leave to appeal. He sought judicial review of the refusal to give leave to appeal, and now appealed the refusal of leave to apply for a judicial review.
Cited – Regina v University of London; Ex parte Vijayatunga 1988
The court considered the powers of the Visitors to the University. Simon Brown J said: ‘The Visitor enjoys untrammelled jurisdiction to investigate and correct wrongs done in the administration of the internal law of a Foundation to which he is . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Fayed CA 13-Nov-1996
The nature of the Secretary of State’s objections and a chance to reply are to be given if the Secretary intends to deny an application for naturalisation. Administrative convenience cannot justify unfairness. The court deprecated ‘fishing . .
Cited – Pearlman v Keepers and Governors of Harrow School CA 14-Jul-1978
The court considered the finality of decision of a county court judge regarding the interpretation of the phrase ‘structural alteration’ in the 1974 Act. Paragraph 2 (2) of Schedule 8 provided that the determination of the county court judge ‘shall . .
Cited – Regina v Cripps, ex parte Muldoon QBD 1984
C, a barrister was appointed to hear an election petition under section 115. The petitioners later sought an order of certiorari to quash his costs award. It was claimed that no such remedy lay against the tribunal.
Held: Certiorari would lie. . .
Cited – Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart HL 26-Nov-1992
Reference to Parliamentary Papers behind Statute
The inspector sought to tax the benefits in kind received by teachers at a private school in having their children educated at the school for free. Having agreed this was a taxable emolument, it was argued as to whether the taxable benefit was the . .
Cited – G v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Interim Decision) CA 9-Mar-2004
A certificate had been granted by the Home Secretary that the applicant was suspected of terrorism, and he had accordingly been detained under special procedures. When his case had come before the Special Immigration Appeal Tribunal, they had . .
Cited – Regina v Social Security Commissioner, Ex Parte Chamberlain QBD 7-Jul-2000
On an application to review an earlier incapacity benefit decision, the adjudicating officer or tribunal must first decide if a material change of circumstances existed since the decision, or whether the decision was founded upon some mistake. Only . .
Cited – Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v The Lands Tribunal CA 8-Nov-2005
The claimant appealed against a refusal of judicial review of a decision of the Lands Tribunal.
Held: A decision of the Lands Tribunal could only be judicially reviewed in exceptional cases where there was either a jurisdictional error or a . .
Cited – Strickson, Regina (On the Application of) v Preston County Court and Others CA 8-Oct-2007
The court was required to revisit the circumstances in which the High Court may properly entertain a judicial review of orders made by a judge in the county court.
Laws LJ said: ‘How should such a defect be described in principle? I think a . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Cart, Regina (on The Application of) v The Upper Tribunal and Others CA 23-Jul-2010
The claimant had sought and been refused judicial review of a decision of the SIAC Upper Tribunal. The Upper Tribunals were designated as courts of superior record, and the court at first instance had said that SIACs specialist procedures and . .
At First Instance – Cart v The Upper Tribunal SC 21-Jun-2011
Limitations to Judicial Reviw of Upper Tribunal
Three claimants sought to challenge decisions of various Upper Tribunals by way of judicial review. In each case the request for judicial review had been first refused on the basis that having been explicitly designated as higher courts, the proper . .
Cited – Ogunbiyi, Regina (on The Application of) v Southend County Court and Another Admn 19-Mar-2015
Application for judicial review of a decision of a Circuit Judge at the County Court, (a) refusing permission to appeal again the judgment of a Deputy District Judge following a trial of the claim for damages again the claimant under a hire purchase . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 September 2021; Ref: scu.381677
