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.
Held: In the absence of some procedural irregularity or other exceptional circumstance, judicial review of a refusal to give leave to appeal should not be granted. Judicial review has always been a remedy of last resort. Phillips MR said: ‘All the authorities to which we have been referred indicate that this remains true today. The weight of authority makes it impossible to accept that the jurisdiction to subject a decision to judicial review can be removed by statutory implication’.
The court set out a comprehensive set of principles, operable through the discretionary power to deny judicial review, and designed to ensure that only true jurisdictional challenges could bypass the appeal process. The court confined such challenges to ‘very rare cases where a litigant challenges the jurisdiction of a circuit judge . . on the ground of jurisdictional error in the narrow, pre-Anisminic sense, or procedural irregularity of such a kind as to constitute a denial of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing.’ Permission to proceed with a judicial review claim will be refused where a claimant has failed to exhaust his other possible remedies.

Latham, Mance LJJ, Phillips MR
Gazette 23-Jan-2003, [2002] EWCA Civ 1738, [2003] 1 WLR 475, [2003] CP Rep 27, [2003] 2 All ER 160
Access to Justice Act 1999 54(1)
England and Wales
Appeal fromRegina (on the Application of Sivasubramaniam) v Wandsworth County Court Admn 13-Dec-2001
The applicant sought to appeal against a refusal of leave to appeal against an arbitration. There had been some delay for the applicant’s health.
Held: Leave to appeal having been refused there was no further right of appeal under the 1999 . .
CitedRegina 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 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 . .
CitedAhsan v Carter CA 28-Jul-2005
The claimant sought to assert race discrimination by the Labour Party in not selecting him as a political candidate. The defendant, chairman of the party appealed.
Held: A political party when selecting candidates was not acting as a . .
CitedRoche v The United Kingdom ECHR 19-Oct-2005
(Grand Chamber) The claimant had been exposed to harmful chemicals whilst in the Army at Porton Down in 1953. He had wished to claim a service pension on the basis of the ensuing personal injury, but had been frustrated by many years of the . .
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 . .
CitedSher and Others v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police and Others Admn 21-Jul-2010
The claimants, Pakistani students in the UK on student visas, had been arrested and held by the defendants under the 2000 Act before being released 13 days later without charge. They were at first held incognito. They said that their arrest and . .
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 . .
CitedCart, 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 . .
CitedCart 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 . .
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 . .
CitedSingh v HM Revenue and Customs UTTC 15-May-2010
UTTC JUDICIAL REVIEW – the concession of ‘equitable liability’ known as the Noble practice – standing to bring judicial review proceedings – no.
The bankrupt objected to the attempted proof by the Revenue in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Litigation Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.178469