The court doubted whether the doctrine of issue estoppel is applicable in judicial review proceedings. After holding that on the facts of the case it did not arise as a defence, the court approved, by the way, the judgment at first instance which had been to the effect that issue estoppel did not as a doctrine apply to applications for permission to apply for judicial review; however, there existed a discretion, ‘in the interests of finality’, not to allow issues to be relitigated.
Judges:
Dunn LJ
Citations:
[1984] 1 WLR 592
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Munjaz v Mersey Care National Health Service Trust And the Secretary of State for Health, the National Association for Mental Health (Mind) Respondent interested; CA 16-Jul-2003
The claimant was a mental patient under compulsory detention, and complained that he had been subjected to periods of seclusion.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The hospital had failed to follow the appropriate Code of Practice. The Code was not . .
Cited – Kent Pharmaceuticals Ltd, (Regina on the Application of ) v Serious Fraud Office and Another Admn 17-Dec-2003
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision of the respondent to disclose documents obtained by it from them during an investigation.
Held: The decisions to disclose material to the DoH were ‘in accordance with law’ within the meaning . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Judicial Review
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.185210
