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. Once the election court had made its order, it was functus officio, and not free to return to its earlier order and amend it under the slip rule. Goff LJ observed that the Court-Martial Appeal Court and the Restrictive Practices Court were simple examples of courts which were not inferior for the purposes of judicial review.
References: [1984] 1 QB 68
Judges: Goff LJ
Statutes: Representation of the People Act 1949 110, 115
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Cart and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Upper Tribunal and Others Admn 1-Dec-2009
    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 . .
    (, [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)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.442690