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 its decision the tribunal had made reference to the expert medical report and thereby had incorporated it in the judgment. This resulted in an error being apparent on the face of the record, thus allowing the appeal court to intervene and make an order of certiorari. The words of the statute, that any decision of a medical appeal tribunal of a question arising under the Act ‘shall be final’, were insufficiently clear to prevent such an order.
Such jurisdiction was well established. Denning LJ said: ‘On looking . . into the old books I find it very well settled that the remedy of certiorari is never to be taken away by any statute except by the most clear and explicit words. The word ‘final’ is not enough. That only means ‘without appeal’. It does not mean ‘without recourse to certiorari’. It makes the decision final on the facts, but not final on the law. . All the authorities to which we have been referred indicate that this remains true today’.

Denning LJ, Romer LJ, Parker LJ
[1957] 1 QB 574, [1957] 1 All ER 796, [1957] EWCA Civ 1, [1957] 2 WLR 498
Bailii
National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1946, National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Benefit) Regulations 1948 2(5)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRex v Plowright 1686
The collectors of chimney tax distrained on the landlord of a cottage. The applicable Act provided that any question about such distress should be ‘heard and finally determined by one or more justices . . ‘ The decision of the justices was in error . .
CitedRex v Warnford 1825
The courts have power to order an inferior court to complete or correct an imperfect record. . .
CitedWilliams v Lord Bagot (2) 1824
Abbott CJ: ‘If an inferior court . . send up an incomplete record, we may order them to complete it . . If we are not to order, or allowthe officers of the court below to make a perfect record, which unquestionably they are at liberty to do, it will . .
CitedFoster’s Case 1614
The words of an Act of parliament ‘shall not bind the King’s Bench, because the pleas there are coram ipso Rege.’ . .
CitedSmith’s Case 1670
An order of the Commissioners of Sewers was brought before the court. The commissioners pointed to a statute which provided that they should not be compelled to certify or return their proceedings.
Held: The contention was rejected: ‘Yet it . .
CitedGrenville v Royal College of Physicians 1700
. .
CitedTaylor (formerly Kraupl) v National Assistance Board CA 1951
Lord Denning spoke as to the power of a court to issue a declaration, ‘The remedy is not excluded by the fact that the determination of the board is by statute made ‘final’. Parliament gives the impress of finality to the decisions of the board only . .
CitedEdwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow HL 25-Jul-1955
The House was asked whether a particular transaction was ‘an adventure in the nature of trade’.
Held: Although the House accepted that this was ‘an inference of fact’, on the primary facts as found by the Commissioners ‘the true and only . .
CitedRex v Moreley, Rex v Osborne, Rex v Reeve, Rex v Norris 1760
The Conventicle Act said ‘that no other court whatsoever shall intermeddle with any cause or causes of appeal upon this Act: but they shall be finally determined in the quarter sessions only.’
Held: Certiorari was nevertheless ordered: ‘The . .
CitedRegina v National Insurance Commissioners, ex parte Timmis QBD 1954
A decision of the Commisioners was said by statute to be final, an accordingly certiorari was not available. . .
CitedRex v Nat Bell Liquors Ltd PC 7-Apr-1922
(Alberta) Lord Sumner said: ‘Long before Jervis’s Acts statutes had been passed which created an inferior court, and declared its decisions to be ‘final’ and ‘without appeal’, and again and again the Court of the King’s Bench had held that the . .
CitedRex v Jukes 1800
A conviction by magistrates was said to be erroneous on its face, having failed to exclude a possible defence. The prosecutor objected to an application that it be quashed, saying ‘that the defendant having elected to appeal to the sessions, the . .
CitedRex v Cashiobury Hunderd Justices KBD 1823
The court looked to the ouster of the its jurisdiction to issue an order of certiorari to a lower court ‘certiorari always lies, unless it expressly taken away, and an appeal never lies, unless it is expressly given by the statute . . .’ . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina (G) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal; Regina (M) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal Admn 25-Mar-2004
The applicants sought judicial review of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s refusal of leave to appeal. The court had to decide whether such a right survived section 101 of the 2001 Act.
Held: The right to have a judicial review could only be . .
CitedSivasubramaniam 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.
CitedIn re Racal Communications Ltd; In Re a Company HL 3-Jul-1980
Court of Appeal’s powers limited to those Given
The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal is wholly statutory; it is appellate only. The court has no original jurisdiction. It has no jurisdiction itself to entertain any original application for judicial review; it has appellate jurisdiction over . .
CitedSinclair 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 . .
CitedHM Revenue and Customs, Regina (on the Application of) v Raymond Machell QC and others Admn 21-Nov-2005
The claimant had had goods taken and destroyed by Revenue and Customs, which had been found to be wrongfully condemned. They had been awarded the market value of the goods at UK prices, though they had been bought in France.
Held: The market . .
CitedCart 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 . .
CitedEBA v Advocate General for Scotland SC 21-Jun-2011
The appellant had sought to challenge refusal of disability living allowance. Ultimately her request a judicial review of the Upper Tribunal’s decion was rejected on the basis that the UT, being a court of superior record, was not susceptible to . .
CitedAnisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission HL 17-Dec-1968
There are no degrees of nullity
The plaintiffs had owned mining property in Egypt. Their interests were damaged and or sequestrated and they sought compensation from the Respondent Commission. The plaintiffs brought an action for the declaration rejecting their claims was a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Judicial Review

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.197036