Tag: Judicial Review

Regina v Birmingham Coroner’s Court Ex Parte Najada: CA 4 Dec 1995

At the inquest, the coroner had quizzed the applicant about his evidence but had not warned him, as he was required to do, about the possibility of self incrimination. The doctor then sought a review of the coroner’s verdict. The coroner now applied to have the judicial review adjourned pending the conclusion of other, criminal proceedings.
Held: It was for the person seeking to have a judicial review adjourned to justify the request. The applicant had a right to have it said that the coroner’s verdict had had A judicial review case should normally to be heard straight away, but it may be delayed to await the outcome of a criminal trial. If the applicant succeded at the criminal trial, the judicial review need not proceed in any event. The judge’s order adjourning the judicial review was upheld.

Judges:

Neill, Auld, Iain Glidewell LJJ

Citations:

Times 05-Dec-1995, Ind Summary 04-Dec-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Judicial Review, Coroners

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.86140

Michalak v General Medical Council and Others: SC 1 Nov 2017

Dr M had successfully challenged her dismissal and recovered damages for unfair dismissal and race discrimination. In the interim, Her employer HA had reported the dismissal to the respondent who continued their proceedings despite the decision in her favour. The GMC now said that the availability of judicial review excluded her right to commence proceedings before the Employment Tribunal by virtue of section 120 of the 2010 Act.
Held: The GMC’s appeal failed. Judicial review in the context of the present case is not in the nature of an appeal. Nor is it a remedy provided by reason of an enactment.

Judges:

Baroness Hale of Richmond PSC, Lord Mance DPSC, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore;, Lord Wilson, Lord Hughes JJSC

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 71, [2017] 1 WLR 4193, (2018) 159 BMLR 1, [2018] 1 All ER 463, [2018] ICR 49, [2018] IRLR 60, [2017] WLR(D) 734, UKSC 2016/0084

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2017 07 04 am Video, SC 2017 07 04 pm Video, Bailii Summary

Statutes:

Equality Act 2010 120(7), Senior Courts Act 1981 31(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At EAT – The General Medical Council v Dickson, Haywood, Dr Michalak EAT 25-Nov-2014
The Claimant complained to an Employment Tribunal that she had been discriminated against by the GMC (a qualifications body). The GMC contended that section 120(7) Equality Act precluded jurisdiction, since judicial review afforded an appeal for the . .
See Also – Michalak, Regina (on The Application of) v General Medical Council Admn 22-Jul-2011
Dr M sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent to continue its investigation of her by the Fitness to Practice panel. That panel, after hearing substantial evidence had to restart on the panel medical member was unable to continue with . .
Cited – Kennedy v The Charity Commission SC 26-Mar-2014
The claimant journalist sought disclosure of papers acquired by the respondent in its conduct of enquiries into the charitable Mariam appeal. The Commission referred to an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of the 2000 Act, saying that the . .
Cited – Pham v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-Mar-2015
The court was asked: ‘whether the Secretary of State was precluded under the British Nationality Act 1981 from making an order depriving the appellant of British citizenship because to do so would render him stateless. This turns on whether (within . .
Cited – Keyu and Others v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Another SC 25-Nov-2015
The Court was asked whether the respondents should be required to hold a public inquiry into a controversial series of events in 1948, when a Scots Guards patrol was alleged to shot and killed 24 unarmed civilians in a village called Batang Kali, in . .
Appeal from – Michalak v The General Medical Council and Others CA 23-Mar-2016
The court considered the remedies and routes of appeal available to individuals who claim to have suffered from discrimination, victimisation, harassment or detriment in the treatment that they have received from a qualifications body. In . .
Cited – Khan v General Medical Council CA 11-Apr-1994
The appellant’s application for full registration as a qualified medical practitioner had been refused by the GMC after a five-year maximum period of limited registration. His application for full registration in accordance with section 25 of the . .
Cited – Tariquez-Zaman v General Medical Council EAT 20-Dec-2006
EAT Race Discrimination – Discrimination by other bodies
Practice and Procedure – Amendment
(a) The Employment Tribunal correctly held it had no jurisdiction to hear Claimant’s case brought under the . .
Dictum disapproved – Jooste v General Medical Council and Others EAT 4-Jul-2012
EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION – Indirect
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
Costs
The Employment Judge correctly struck out the Claimant’s claims as having no . .
Cited – The Secretary of State for Health, Dorset County Council v The Personal Representative of Christopher Beeson CA 18-Dec-2002
The deceased had been adjudged by his local authority to have deprived himself of his house under the Regulations. Complaint was made that the procedure did not allow an appeal and therefore deprived him of his rights under article 6.
Held: . .
Cited – 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 – Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC) CA 13-Nov-2002
Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal
The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. . .
Cited – Datec Electronics Holdings Ltd and others v United Parcels Services Ltd HL 16-May-2007
The defendants had taken on the delivery of a quantity of the claimant’s computers. The equipment reached one depot, but then was lost or stolen. The parties disputed whether the Convention rules applied. UPS said that the claimant had agreed that . .
Cited – In re P and Others, (Adoption: Unmarried couple) (Northern Ireland); In re G HL 18-Jun-2008
The applicants complained that as an unmarried couple they had been excluded from consideration as adopters.
Held: Northern Ireland legislation had not moved in the same way as it had for other jurisdictions within the UK. The greater . .

Cited by:

Cited – Haralambous, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Court at St Albans and Another SC 24-Jan-2018
The appellant challenged by review the use of closed material first in the issue of a search warrant, and subsequently to justify the retention of materials removed during the search.
Held: The appeal failed. No express statutory justification . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health Professions, Judicial Review

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.598455

Regina v Advertising Standards Authority Ltd Ex Parte Vernons Organisation Ltd: QBD 9 Dec 1992

An injunction was not granted to restrain the publication of a decision of the ASA pending the result of a challenge by way of Judicial Review. There is a general principle in our law that the expression of opinion and the conveyance of information will not be restrained by the courts save on pressing grounds. Freedom of expression is as much a sinew of the common law as it is of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Laws J said: ‘If a private individual will not be restrained from expressing his opinion save on pressing grounds I see no reason why a public body having a duty, other things being equal, to express its opinion should be subject to any less rigid rules. It seems to me that the case is, if anything, analogous to one where an administrative body has an adjudicative function and in the course of its duties publishes a ruling criticising some affected person and the ruling is later disturbed or reversed by an appropriate appellate process. There are many such instances and many of them involve the criticism of members of the public, corporate or natural.
I do not know of an instance in which a public body of that kind would fall to be restrained from carrying out what is no more nor less than its ordinary, but important, everyday duties simply upon the grounds that the intended publication contains material which is subject to legal challenge as being vitiated by some error of law. If the application for judicial review here is successful I cannot think but that there are ample means at the applicant’s disposal to correct any adverse impression which what, ex hypothesi, would be an unlawful report may have given to the public. Indeed, though it has not been canvassed in argument, I know of no reason why the fact that they have obtained leave should not itself be disseminated if they wish to take any steps in that direction since this is an attempt to prevent the public and indeed, in fairness to the applicant, its fellow advertisers and others in the trade to which it belongs from seeing that the authority has reached those conclusions. I do not consider that the effects of that publication are damaging to the applicant in a manner which would be so irreparable, so past recall as to amount to a pressing ground, in the language of Strasbourg, a pressing social need, to restrain this public body from carrying out its function in the ordinary way.’

Judges:

Laws J

Citations:

Gazette 09-Dec-1992, [1992] 1 WLR 1289, [1993] 2 All ER 202

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Douglas, Zeta Jones, Northern and Shell Plc v Hello! Limited (No 1) CA 21-Dec-2000
The first two claimants sold exclusive rights to photograph their wedding to the third claimant. A paparrazzi infiltrated the wedding and then sold his unauthorised photographs to the defendants, who now appealed injunctions restraining them from . .
Cited – Regina v Advertising Standards Authority Limited ex parte Direct Line Financial Services Limited Admn 8-Aug-1997
An ex parte application was made to quash a decision by the Advertising Standards Authority upholding a complaint that the applicants in that case were in breach of the British Codes of Advertising and Sales Promotion, and an injunction to prevent . .
Cited – Debt Free Direct Ltd, Regina (on the Application Of) v Advertising Standards Authority Ltd Admn 15-May-2007
The claimant sought continuation of a without notice interim injunction to restrain the defendant from publishing its findings on a complaint against the claimant. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Media, Human Rights

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.86039

G, Regina (on The Application of) v Blackpool Borough Council: Admn 15 Mar 2011

The claimants sought judicial review of decisions and actions taken by the respondents with respect of their son.
Held: Leave was refused because of the repeated delay by the applicants.

Judges:

Langstaff J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1052 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Judicial Review

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.434862

Regina v Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards Ex Parte Al-Fayed: CA 5 Nov 1997

The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards had published a report relating to a complaint by the applicant against a Member of Parliament.
Held: The applicant sought permission to challenge this by judicial review. The applicant’s appeal failed. No judicial review was possible of the workings of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards despite the absence of any Appeal from his findings. To allow a judicial review would be to impugn the House of Commons. Lord Woolf MR said: ‘Activities of government are the basic fare of judicial review. Activities of Parliament are not the basic fare of judicial review. Indeed activities of Parliament are accepted in general by Mr. Pannick to be not subject to judicial review. If I may put it this way, if what was being sought here was judicial review of the Standing Committee responsible for supervising the activities of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Mr. Pannick would accept that judicial review was not available.’ and ‘The focus of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is on the propriety of the workings and the activities of those engaged within Parliament. He is one of the means by which the select committee set up by the House carries out its functions, which are accepted to be part of the proceedings of the House. This being the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, it would be inappropriate for this court to use its supervisory powers to control what the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards does in relation to an investigation of this sort. The responsibility for supervising the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is placed by Parliament, through its standing orders, on the Committee of Standards and Privileges of the House, and it is for that body to perform that role and not the courts.’

Judges:

Lord Woolf MR

Citations:

Gazette 05-Nov-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2488, [1998] 1 WLR 669, [1998] 1 All ER 93

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hamilton v Al Fayed HL 23-Mar-2000
The claimant MP sued the defendant in defamation after he had alleged that the MP had corruptly solicited and received payments and benefits in kind as a reward for parliamentary services rendered.
Held: Parliament has protected by privilege . .
Cited – Chaytor and Others, Regina v CACD 30-Jul-2010
The defendants had been members of the Houses of Commons and of Lords. They faced charges of dishonesty in respect of their expenses claims. They now appealed a finding that they were not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament under . .
Cited – Chaytor and Others, Regina v SC 1-Dec-2010
The defendants faced trial on charges of false accounting in connection in different ways with their expenses claims whilst serving as members of the House of Commons. They appealed against rejection of their assertion that the court had no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Constitutional

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.87524

Regina v Broadcasting Complaints Commission Ex Parte Granada Television Ltd: CA 16 Dec 1994

The Broadasting Complaints Commission had been established to determine questions of privacy, and the courts should be slow to intervene. The right of privacy of an individual had not been lost by past publicity. That privacy had been infringed by the broadcast complained of, and the commissions decision was not unreasonable. The privacy of bereaved families was infringed by photographs even if the family was otherwise notorious.

Citations:

Gazette 15-Feb-1995, Ind Summary 20-Feb-1995, Times 16-Dec-1994, [1995] EMLR 16

Statutes:

Broadcasting Act 1990 143

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Broadcasting Complaints Commission, ex Parte Granada Television Ltd QBD 31-May-1993
The Commission had not been unreasonable in taking the view that a broadcast had infringed the privacy of the subject of the complaint. Judicial Review was not available against BBC for infringement of privacy. . .

Cited by:

Cited – McKennitt and others v Ash and Another QBD 21-Dec-2005
The claimant sought to restrain publication by the defendant of a book recounting very personal events in her life. She claimed privacy and a right of confidence. The defendant argued that there was a public interest in the disclosures.
Held: . .
Cited – CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another (1) QBD 16-May-2011
A leading footballer had obtained an injunction restraining the defendants from publishing his identity and allegations of sexual misconduct. The claimant said that she had demanded money not to go public.
Held: It had not been suggested that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Media, Judicial Review, Information

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.86221

Regina v Chesterfield Borough Council Ex Parte Fullwood: CA 15 Jun 1993

A non-dependant joint occupier can be taken into account when a claimant applies for housing benefit, even though they were not themselves liable for the rent.

Citations:

Ind Summary 05-Jul-1993, Times 15-Jun-1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits, Judicial Review

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.86347

In Re E (No 2): CA 11 Aug 1994

The claimant was subject to a cvil proceedings order, requiring to obtain leave before issuing proceedings. He now sought to appeal a finding against him that he should have sought such permission before applying for permission to issue judicial review proceedings.
Held: The Court of Appeal may not hear an appeal from a refusal of leave to a vexatious litigant to issue proceedings. Lord Donaldson MR said: ‘The proper way to deal with the matter, in my judgment, is that, upon an application being made by someone to whom section 42 applies for leave to apply for the judicial review of the decision, the matter should be placed before one of the judges who habitually deal with applications for leave under Ord. 53 r. 3 and that he should consider the matter on the footing that he is faced with an application under the section 42 order and an application under Order 53. If he decides that there is a case for giving leave under Order 53, he will of course have no difficulty in deciding that it is a case in which he should also give leave under the section 42 order, and he should give both leaves. If he decides that there is no case for giving leave under Order 53 he equally will have no difficulty in refusing leave under the section 42 order.
It is at the next stage that things will be different according to whether or not he has given leave under the section 42 order. If he refuses leave under the section 42 order, that is the end of the matter, because there is no right of appeal . . If he gives leave, the respondent will be unable to attack the leave under section 42 because that is final, but he may be able to attack the leave under Order 53. At that stage the vexatious litigant, having obtained his leave under section 42, will be treated in all respects as if he were not subject to the order.’
There is generally no appeal against a refusal of leave to commence proceedings to somebody deemed a vexatious litigant.

Judges:

Lord Donaldson MR

Citations:

Times 11-Aug-1994, Ind Summary 15-Aug-1994

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 42

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Judicial Review

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.81871

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Balbo B and C Auto Transporti Internazionali: Admn 22 Mar 2001

Where a notice of liability was served on a transport operator with regard to his responsibility for transporting illegal immigrants into the country, and he wished to challenge it, the proper approach was to allow the notice to expire, and then to defend any proceedings brought. Given that way of dealing with it, it was not appropriate to challenge the notice itself by way of judicial review. The form of notice issued after review did not refer to the Secretary of State’s need to pursue his remedy through the courts. This was unfortunate, but if it were true, it would make him judge and jury in his own cause.

Citations:

Gazette 11-May-2001, Times 22-Mar-2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 195, [2001] 1 WLR 1556

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 34

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Judicial Review, Immigration, Transport

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.88650

Al-Mehdawi v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 23 Nov 1989

The applicant, a student had overstayed his leave. Through his solicitor’s negligence, he lost his appeal against deportation. He sought judicial review of that decision.
Held: Judgment obtained in a party’s absence due entirely to the fault of that party or his advisor was not one obtained in breach of the rules of natural justice for the purpose of judicial review. The loss of his right to be heard was not a procedural impropriety or denial of natural justice. Nor was he entitled to certiorari. In the public law context of removal from the jurisdiction of an alien, a litigant must answer for the failings of his legal advisers.
Lord Bridge said that any other decision would come ‘at the cost of opening such a wide door which would indeed seriously undermine the principle of finality in decision-making.’
The respondent was an Iraqi student who overstayed his leave to remain in the United Kingdom. When he was served with a notice of the Secretary of State’s decision to deport him he instructed solicitors to lodge an appeal. When a hearing date for the appeal was fixed the solicitors wrote to notify him of the date but negligently sent the letter to his previous address and the respondent never received it. The adjudicator subsequently dismissed the appeal on the basis of the documents before him since neither the respondent nor his solicitors had appeared. When the solicitors received notice of the dismissal they again misaddressed the communication intended to inform the respondent of the result, so that by the time he knew of the dismissal of his appeal it was too late for him to appeal further against the adjudicator’s decision. The respondent applied for, and was granted, certiorari to quash the adjudicator’s decision, the judge holding that he was bound by a previous decision of the Court of Appeal which decided that certiorari ought to be granted where the negligence of the applicant’s solicitors had deprived him of an oral hearing. The judge’s decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The Secretary of State appealed to the House of Lords.
Held — A party to a dispute who had been afforded an opportunity of presenting his case to the person deciding the dispute but who had lost the opportunity to have his case heard through the fault of the legal advisers to whom he had entrusted the conduct of the dispute on his behalf could not complain that he had been the victim of a procedural impropriety or that natural justice had been denied to him, and it made no difference whether the matter in dispute raised private law or public law issues. Accordingly, the respondent was not entitled to judicial review of the adjudicator’s decision and the Secretary of State’s appeal would therefore be allowed.

Judges:

Lord Bridge, Lord Roskill, Lord Brandon, Lord Oliver, Lord Goff

Citations:

[1989] 3 WLR 1294, [1989] 3 All ER 843, [1990] 1 AC 876, [1989] UKHL 7

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigtaion Act 1971 21

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v West Sussex Quarter Sessions, ex parte Albert and Maud Johnson Trust CA 1973
. .
Overruled – Rahmani and Others v Diggines HL 20-Mar-1986
The Court of Appeal had overturned the rejection of an administrative appeal from a deportation decision, on the ground that there had been a denial of natural justice when the person involved in an administrative appeal did not attend the hearing . .
Overruled – Regina v Diggines, ex parte Rahmani CA 1985
R, had failed to attend the hearing of her appeal from a refusal to extend her stay in the UK. Her advisers had failed to note her new address and had been unable to notify her of the hearing. The appeal was dismissed in her absence. The adjudicator . .

Cited by:

Cited – Maqsood v The Special Adjudicator, The Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 3-Dec-2001
The applicant sought judicial review of the decision to proceed with his appeal in his absence. He, his advisers and his witness had gone to the wrong court. The court had changed the venue from previous hearings, but the notice of hearing had not . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Ayres Admn 20-Oct-2004
The prosecutor appealed a decision of the magistrates to dismiss the case for abuse of process, having failed to comply with several and repeated directions as to the management of the case. He said that he had not been given opportunity to make . .
Cited – Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Haile CA 2002
The adjudicator in the asylum application had made a crucial mistake about the identity of the political party in Ethiopia, with which the claimant was connected. The error was not drawn to the attention of the IAT. The evidence necessary to prove . .
Cited – FP (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 23-Jan-2007
The claimants said that rules which allowed an appeal tribunal to proceed in their absence when they were absent through no fault of their own, were unlawful in depriving them of a fair trial. The claimants had each moved house but their former . .
Cited – Lukaszewski v The District Court In Torun, Poland SC 23-May-2012
Three of the appellants were Polish citizens resisting European Arrest Warrants. A fourth (H), a British citizen, faced extradition to the USA. An order for the extradition of eachhad been made, and acting under advice each filed a notice of appeal . .
Cited – Helena Partnerships Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs CA 9-May-2012
The company had undertaken substantial building works and sought associated tax relief. The court was asked whether, following a change in the company’s memorandum and articles of association, the company, a registered social landlord, remained a . .
Applied – Formosa Plastics Corporation USA v Chauhan and others CA 6-Apr-1998
The defendant sought a second adjournment of his application for leave to appeal against summary judgment for $21m with interest in respect of a judgment obtained in Texas. The defendant was said to have given his personal guarantee for the purchase . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Immigration, Natural Justice

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.180545

Gourlay, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board: CA 14 Jul 2017

Does the established practice of the High Court, to make no order for costs for or against an inferior tribunal or court which plays no active part in a judicial review of one of its decisions, extend to the Board?

Judges:

Gloster VP CA, David Richards, Kickinbottom LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 1003, [2017] 1 WLR 4107, [2017] WLR(D) 474

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

First Instance main judgment – Regina on the Application of Davies (No 2) v HM Deputy Coroner for Birmingham CA 27-Feb-2004
The claimant appealed against a costs order. She had previously appealed against an order of the High Court on her application for judicial review of the inquest held by the respondent.
Held: The coroner, and others in a similar position . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Gourlay, Regina (on The Application of) v Parole Board SC 4-Dec-2020
The appellant life prisoner had successfully challenged a decision of the parole board, but had later been refused his costs on the basis that the Board had been acting in effect as a judicial body. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Costs

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.589928

Buglife, Regina (on The Application of) v Natural England: Admn 30 Mar 2011

The court established a new principle (concerning time limits for starting judicial review proceedings and the effect of the ECJ’s decision in Uniplex) and extended the law (concerning multi-stage EIAs provided for by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2008).

Judges:

Anthony Thornton QC J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 746 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Judicial Review, Environment

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.440073

Regina on the Application of Feakins v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: CA 4 Nov 2003

The applicant farmer had substantial volumes of potentially contaminated carcasses on his land. The respondent derogated from the European regulations which would have arranged for the disposal of the carcasses. The respondent challenged the standing of the applicant to seek review of the decision. The judge acknowledged the possibility that the applicant had only his private interests at heart, but considered that he could proceed because of the significance of the decision under review. The applicant’s motive was capable of being relevant, but was not such here as to make the application an abuse.
Dyson LJ addressed the question of abuse of process in the context of Judicial Review proceedings, saying: ‘In my judgment, if a claimant has no sufficient private interest to support a claim to standing, then he should not be accorded standing merely because he raises an issue in which there is, objectively speaking, a public interest. As Sedley J said in R v Somerset County Council, Ex p Dixon [1997] JPL 1030, when considering the issue of standing, the court had to ensure that the claimant was not prompted by an ill motive, and was not a mere busybody or a trouble-maker. Thus, if a claimant seeks to challenge a decision in which he has no private law interest, it is difficult to conceive of circumstances in which the court will accord him standing, even where there is a public interest in testing the lawfulness of the decision, if the claimant is acting out of ill-will or for some other improper purpose. It is an abuse of process to permit a claimant to bring a claim in such circumstances. If the real reason why a claimant wishes to challenge a decision in which, objectively, there is a public interest is not that he has a genuine concern about the decision, but some other reason, then that is material to the question whether he should be accorded standing.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Jonathan Parker Lord Justice Thorpe Lord Justice Dyson

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1546, Times 07-Nov-2003, Gazette 02-Jan-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 1761

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Mount Cook Land Ltd and Another v Westminster City Council CA 14-Oct-2003
The applicants had sought judicial review of the defendant’s grant of planning permission for the redevelopment of the former CandA building in Oxford Street. Though the application for leave to apply had been successful, and a full hearing took . .
Appeal from – Feakins v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 20-Dec-2002
. .
See Also – Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Feakins and Another ChD 26-Nov-2004
The farmer complained that the department had, during the foot and mouth outbreak destroyed animals which did not belong to the owner of the land. The department said that the farmer had disposed of his land at an undervalue to defeat his creditors. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Feakins and Another ChD 26-Nov-2004
The farmer complained that the department had, during the foot and mouth outbreak destroyed animals which did not belong to the owner of the land. The department said that the farmer had disposed of his land at an undervalue to defeat his creditors. . .
Cited – Land Securities Plc and Others v Fladgate Fielder (A Firm) CA 18-Dec-2009
The claimants wanted planning permission to redevelop land. The defendant firm of solicitors, their tenants, had challenged the planning permission. The claimants alleged that that opposition was a tortious abuse because its true purpose was to . .
Now set aside – Feakins and Another v Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 8-Jun-2006
The claimants sought to re-open their appeal saying that the respondent department had failed properly to describe the workings of the clawback scheme under which its claim had been made.
Held: A DEFRA official had provided materially . .
Cited – Good Law Project Ltd and Others, Regina (on Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Admn 18-Feb-2021
Failure to Publish Contracts awards details
Challenge to alleged failures by the Secretary of State to comply with procurement law and policy in relation to contracts for goods and services awarded following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Held: The contracts had been awarded under . .
See Also – Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs v Feakins and Another ChD 26-Nov-2004
. .
See Also – Feakins and Another v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Civ 1513) CA 9-Dec-2005
The department complained that the defendants had entered into a transaction with their farm at an undervalue so as to defeat its claim for recovery of sums due. The transaction used the grant of a tenancy by the first chargee.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture, Environment, Judicial Review

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.187505

Kang, Regina (on The Application of) v Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS): CA 22 Feb 2010

Application for leave to appeal against refusal of leave to bring judicial review of action of an officer of CAFCASS in a case, and in particular the handling of a complaint against the officer.

Judges:

Waller, Wilson LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 317

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Judicial Review, Administrative

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.407763

Uniplex (UK) Limited v Uniplex (Law Relating To Undertakings): ECJ 29 Oct 2009

ECJ Public procurement Directive 89/665/EEC – Review procedure under national law – Effective legal protection -Limitation periods – Point at which time starts running – Whether the applicant knew or ‘ought to have’ known of the breach of procurement law Requirement that proceedings be brought ‘promptly’.

Citations:

C-406/08, [2009] EUECJ C-406/08 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

See Also – Uniplex (UK) Limited v Uniplex ECJ 28-Jan-2010
ECJ Directive 89/665/EEC – Procedures for review of the award of public contracts – Period within which proceedings must be brought – Date from which the period for bringing proceedings starts to run. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Limitation, Judicial Review

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.380310

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department Ex Parte Fire Brigades Union and Others: QBD 24 May 1994

The Home Secretary was under no duty to bring the new statutory CICB scheme into force on any particular date. He was free to continue to use his own. The court refused to order a judicial review.

Judges:

Staughton LJ and Buckley J

Citations:

Times 30-May-1994, Independent 24-May-1994

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 17(1) 108 109 110 8111 112 113 114 115 116 117

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department Ex Parte Fire Brigades Union and Others CA 10-Nov-1994
The Home Secretary’s non-statutory scheme for the compensation for criminal injuries was unlawful pending implementation of the Act. It amounted to an abuse of power. He had power to delay implementing the new Act, with no duty to bring it into . .
At First Instance – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Fire Brigades Union HL 5-Apr-1995
Parliament had passed the 1988 Act which provided for a new Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. Instead of implementing the Act, the Home Secretary drew up a non-statutory scheme for a tarriff based system by using prerogative powers. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Judicial Review, Damages

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.87741

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department Ex Parte Fire Brigades Union and Others: CA 10 Nov 1994

The Home Secretary’s non-statutory scheme for the compensation for criminal injuries was unlawful pending implementation of the Act. It amounted to an abuse of power. He had power to delay implementing the new Act, with no duty to bring it into force, but could not in the interim introduce a scheme which differed radically from the scheme whilst the existing Act remained unrepealed.
Hobhouse LJ said that whether or not a provision becomes part of the law of the United Kingdom depends upon whether and when it comes into force: that is what coming into force means. When a statutory provision becomes part of the law of the United Kingdom depends upon what commencement provision Parliament has enacted.

Judges:

Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Morritt LJ, Hobhouse LJ dissenting

Citations:

Times 10-Nov-1994, Independent 10-Nov-1994, [1995] 2 WLR 1

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department Ex Parte Fire Brigades Union and Others QBD 24-May-1994
The Home Secretary was under no duty to bring the new statutory CICB scheme into force on any particular date. He was free to continue to use his own. The court refused to order a judicial review. . .
Cited – Attorney General v De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd HL 10-May-1920
A hotel had been requisitioned during the war for defence purposes. The owner claimed compensation. The AG argued that the liability to pay compensation had been displaced by statute giving the Crown the necessary powers.
Held: There is an . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Fire Brigades Union HL 5-Apr-1995
Parliament had passed the 1988 Act which provided for a new Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. Instead of implementing the Act, the Home Secretary drew up a non-statutory scheme for a tarriff based system by using prerogative powers. The . .
Cited – RM v The Scottish Ministers SC 28-Nov-2012
The pursuer was held in a secure mental hospital. When moved to a highersecurity section, he challenged the move. He lost but then was unable to make an apeal as allowed iunder the 2003 Act because the Scottish Parliament had not created the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Personal Injury, Constitutional

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.87743

Blouet v Bath and Wansdyke Magistrates Court: Admn 12 Mar 2009

Application for judicial review of the decision of the district judge, sitting at Bath and Wansdyke Magistrates’ Court, not to order a fact-finding exercise rather than a trial.

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 759 (Admin), [2009] MHLR 71

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 11(1), Mental Health Act 1983 37(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Judicial Review, Magistrates, Health

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347435

Gentle and Clarke, Regina (on the Application Of) v Prime Minister and others: CA 12 Dec 2006

The claimants appealed refusal of a judicial review of the defendant’s decision to enter into the war in Iraq. The claimants were parents of troops who had died in the war. They said that the legal advice given to the government was incorrect.
Held: Human Rights law requires a proper investigation into deaths, but that requirement was satisfied by the coroners sysem, and did not require or allow a further investigation of the basis of the military action. Outside human rights law, the applications are unjusticiable: ‘The question whether the United Kingdom acted unlawfully in sending its armed forces to Iraq is not justiciable for one or both of two reasons, namely that it would involve a consideration of at least two international instruments, viz Security Council resolutions 678 and 1441, and that it would involve a detailed consideration of decisions of policy made in the areas of foreign affairs and defence which are the exclusive responsibility of the executive government.’

Judges:

Sir Anthny Clarke MR, Sir Igor Judge President, Dyson LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1690, Times 01-Jan-2007

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 2.1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Middleton, Regina (on the Application of) v Coroner for the Western District of Somerset HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased had committed suicide in prison. His family felt that the risk should have been known to the prison authorities, and that they had failed to guard against that risk. The coroner had requested an explanatory note from the jury.
Cited – Takoushis, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Coroner for Inner North London and others CA 30-Nov-2005
Relatives sought judicial review of the coroner’s decision not to allow a jury, and against allowance of an expert witness. The deceased had been a mental patient but had been arrested with a view to being hospitalised. He was taken first to the . .
Cited – Buttes Gas and Oil Co v Hammer (No 3) HL 1981
In a defamation action, issues arose as to two conflicting oil concessions which neighbouring states in the Arabian Gulf had granted over their territorial and offshore waters. The foreign relations of the United Kingdom and Iran were also involved . .
Cited – JH Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v Department of Trade and Industry HL 1989
An undisclosed principal will not be permitted to claim to be party to a contract if this is contrary to the terms of the contract itself. Thus the provision in the standard form B contract of the London Metal Exchange ‘this contract is made between . .
Cited – Regina v Jones (Margaret), Regina v Milling and others HL 29-Mar-2006
Domestic Offence requires Domestic Defence
Each defendant sought to raise by way of defence of their otherwise criminal actions, the fact that they were attempting to prevent the commission by the government of the crime of waging an aggressive war in Iraq, and that their acts were . .
Cited – Regina (Abbasi) v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs CA 6-Nov-2002
There is no authority in law to support the imposition of an enforceable duty on the state to protect the citizen, and although the court was able to intervene, in limited ways, in the way in which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office used its . .
Cited – Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service HL 22-Nov-1984
Exercise of Prerogative Power is Reviewable
The House considered an executive decision made pursuant to powers conferred by a prerogative order. The Minister had ordered employees at GCHQ not to be members of trades unions.
Held: The exercise of a prerogative power of a public nature . .
Cited – Regina v Foreign Secretary ex parte Everett CA 20-Oct-1988
A decision taken under the royal prerogative whether or not to issue a passport was subject to judicial review, although relief was refused on the facts of the particular case.
Taylor LJ summarised the effect of the GCHQ case as making clear . .
Cited – Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) v Prime Minister and others Admn 17-Dec-2002
CND sought an advisory declaration as to the meaning of UN Security Council resolution 1441, which had given Iraq ‘a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations’ and whether the resolution authorised states to take military action . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Human Rights

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.246968

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Bentley: QBD 8 Jul 1993

Bentley had been convicted of the murder of a policeman. He was of low intelligence and he was captured. His co-accused still held a gun. He shouted out ‘Let him have it’ He was convicted, but had said that he had only intended for the gun to be surrendered. A posthumous pardon was sought.
Held: The royal prerogative of pardon is a flexible power. The court recommended to the Home Secretary that he re-examine the case of Bentley who had been hanged in 1953 with a view to exercising the prerogative of mercy. Home Secretary’s decision to pardon prisoner is susceptible to Judicial Review and the court could not make an order. The Home Secretary’s discretion on the exercise of the prerogative of mercy is a wide discretion.
‘The present Home Secretary is fully aware that there is nothing to prevent him recommending the grant of a free pardon even in a case in which he is not persuaded that the conviction was wrong . . He continues to think that a free pardon should be recommended only when the Home Secretary of the day is satisfied that the convicted person was not guilty of the offence charged.’
The court did not think the Home Secretary’s understanding as non-justiciable policy: ‘the substance of the applicant’s case was that the Home Secretary failed to recognise the fact that the prerogative of mercy is capable of being exercised in many different circumstances and over a wide range and therefore failed to consider the form of pardon which might be appropriate to meet the facts of the present case. Such a failure is, we think, reviewable.’
The Court concluded: ‘it is an error to regard the prerogative of mercy as a prerogative right which is only exercisable in cases which fall into specific categories. The prerogative is a flexible power and its exercise can and should be adapted to meet the circumstances of the particular case.’

Citations:

Gazette 13-Oct-1993, Independent 08-Jul-1993, Times 08-Jul-1993, [1994] QB 349, [1993] 4 All ER 442, [1994] 2 WLR 101

Statutes:

Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees 1951

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Shields, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 17-Dec-2008
The claimant had been convicted in Bulgaria of attempted murder. He had denied it, and somebody later confessed to the crime, but that confession had not been admitted. Having been transferred to England to complete his sentence, he now asked for a . .
Cited – Miller, Regina (On the Application Of) v The Prime Minister QBD 11-Sep-2019
Prorogation request was non-justiciable
The claimant sought to challenge the prorogation of Parliament by the Queen at the request of the respondent.
Held: The claim failed: ‘the decision of the Prime Minister to advise Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament is not justiciable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Judicial Review

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.87833

Quintavalle and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority: Admn 9 Dec 2008

The claimants wished to challenge licensing decisions made by the respondent, and for a protective costs order.

Judges:

Dobbs J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 3395 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 16

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal for England and Wales, Ex parte Caswell HL 17-May-1990
The House sought to reconcile section 31 of the 1981 Act, with RSC Order 53 r4 as to the time within which judicial review proceedings must be brought.
Held: Whenever there was a failure to act promptly or within three months there was ‘undue . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Furneaux CA 1994
The court is entitled to refuse a request for judicial review on the sole ground of delay without any requirement of a causal link between the delay and any prejudice. Mere tardiness or incompetence of legal or other advisors is normally not a good . .
Cited – Regina (Assisted Reproduction and Gynaecology Centre) v The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority CA 31-Jan-2002
The applicant was undergoing fertility treatment. She wanted to have more than three eggs implanted, but permission for this was refused by the Authority. She sought to challenge that by way of judicial review.
Held: Judicial review was not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Costs

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.293967

Williamson, Re Judicial Review: CANI 5 Dec 2008

Judges:

Kerr LCJ, Girvan LJ and Coghlin LJ

Citations:

[2008] NICA 52

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Lancashire County Council ex parte Huddleston CA 1986
The respondent council had failed to allocate a university student grant to the claimant and the principle was directed at the duty of that authority to state clearly the reasons for its refusal and the particular factors that had been taken into . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.279913

Regina v Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate Ex Parte Chaudhry: QBD 9 Jul 1993

The Crown Prosecution Service was in the process of pursuing a prosecution when the private prosecutor sought to bring a prosecution for a serious offence arising out of the same facts. There would be potentially concurrent prosecutions.
Held: Magistrates were not wrong to disallow a private prosecution in addition to crown prosecution. A private prosecutor does not have the unfettered right to a trial. Kennedy LJ said that on the question of the relevant considerations, when deciding whether to issue a summons in such a case: ‘The magistrate should have regard to all of the relevant circumstances of which he is aware . . . such as whether the incident giving rise to the information which he is considering has already been investigated by a responsible prosecuting authority which is pursuing what it considers to be the appropriate charges against the same proposed defendant.’

Judges:

Kennedy LJ, Bell J

Citations:

Independent 09-Jul-1993, Times 14-Sep-1993, [1994] QB 340

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985 6(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Charlson, Regina (on the Application of) v Guildford Magistrates’ Court and others Admn 11-Sep-2006
The CPS had discontinued a prosecution. The magistrates were then asked to issue a summons for a private prosecution. The private prosecutor appealed against the refusal to issue the summons. A second summons was requested from a different . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Crime, Magistrates

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.87326

Regina v North West Leicestershire District Council: QBD 29 Sep 1999

The applicant sought review several years after a decision allowing an extension of a runway, having come to be affected by the increase in noise. She said the decision should only have been made after an assessment of the consequential environmental impact. She moved before the application was heard. Since she was no longer a person affected by the decision. Her application was refused.

Citations:

Gazette 29-Sep-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v North West Leicestershire District Council and Another, Ex Parte Moses CA 28-Apr-2000
The authority granted approval of an extension of the airport runway in 1994, but on a later application required an environmental impact assessment. That was provided, and dealt with the impact of both extensions. The applicant sought judicial . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.87449

Regina v North West Thames Regional Health Authority and Others, ex parte Daniels (Rhys William): QBD 18 Jun 1993

The court considered that a failure by the district health authority to consult the community health council before closing a local hospital was unlawful.

Citations:

Independent 18-Jun-1993, Times 22-Jun-1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health Professions, Judicial Review

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.87452

Dumbuya, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Lewisham: Admn 16 Jul 2008

Judges:

Walker J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1852 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Boxall v Waltham Forest Borough Council 2001
The fact that the claimants were legally aided was immaterial when deciding what, if any, costs order to make between the parties in a case where they were successful and he declined to order that each side should bear its own costs. The court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Judicial Review

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.272810

Dinedor Hill Action Association v County of Herefordshire District Council and Another: Admn 24 Jul 2008

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1741 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Lancashire County Council ex parte Huddleston CA 1986
The respondent council had failed to allocate a university student grant to the claimant and the principle was directed at the duty of that authority to state clearly the reasons for its refusal and the particular factors that had been taken into . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Judicial Review

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271038

Regina v Birmingham City Council, ex parte Dredger: QBD 22 Jan 1993

The local authority, operators of the market, increased the rents payable by the tenants. The tenants sought a review of the decision.
Held: The act was that of a public authority and was subject to judicial review. The market stall-holders were entitled to be consulted before charges were increased.

Judges:

Hutchinson J

Citations:

[1994] 6 Admin L R 553, Times 28-Jan-1993, (1993) COD 340

Statutes:

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Followed – Regina v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council, ex parte Hook CA 1976
The applicant applied to have quashed the decision of the local council to exclude him from trading in the market and to revoke his right to have a stall.
Held: He succeeded on the grounds that the decision had been taken in breach of the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Hampshire County Council v Beer (T/A Hammer Trout Farm); Regina (Beer) v Hampshire Farmers’ Market Ltd CA 21-Jul-2003
The applicant had been refused a licence to operate within the farmer’s market. It sought judicial review of the rejection, but the respondent argued that it was a private company not susceptible to review.
Held: The decisions of the Farmers . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Judicial Review

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.185803

Regina v Brentwood Borough Council Ex Parte Peck: Admn 18 Dec 1997

The claimant sought judicial review of the authority’s distribution to the media of a CCTV film of his attempted suicide.
Held: A Local Authority which was empowered to make video recording of street events had a power to distribute resulting film being unaware of objection.

Judges:

Harrison J

Citations:

Times 18-Dec-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 1041

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 111

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property, Judicial Review, Local Government, Media

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.86197

Hardy and others v Pembrokeshire County Council and Another: CA 19 Jul 2006

The court considered the consequences of delay in applications for judicial review: ‘It is important that those parties, and indeed the public generally, should be able to proceed on the basis that the decision is valid and can be relied on, and that they can plan their lives and make personal and business decisions accordingly.’ The court rejected a submission that the requirement in CPR 54.5(1) for an application for judicial review to be made ‘promptly’ offended against the principle of ‘legal certainty’ in European law.

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1008

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 54.591)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Finn-Kelcey v Milton Keynes Council and MK Windfarm Ltd CA 10-Oct-2008
Judicial Review must be timely
The appellant challenged the grant of permission for a wind farm on neighbouring land. His application for judicial review had been rejected for delay and on the merits.
Held: The court repeated the requirement that an application must be both . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Civil Procedure Rules, Judicial Review

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243364

Nduka, Regina (on the Application of) v Her Honour Judge Riddel: Admn 21 Oct 2005

Attempt to avoid normal civil appeal process by use of judicial review – whether abuse of process. The underlying claim had been struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. Permission to appeal had been refused. Permission to bring judicial review of that decision had itself been refused on the basis that the CPR provided a comprehensive system of appeals, which could not be circumvented by judicial review. The claimant now appealed against that refusal.
Held: The County Court had been given extensive and draconian case management powers, and the decisions challenged fell welll within those case management powers. The appeal failed.

Judges:

Wilkie J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 3115 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 54

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Judicial Review, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.238163

Privacy International, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Others: CA 23 Nov 2017

The claimant sought to bring judicial review against the IPT. The IPT argued that section 67(8) of the 2000 Act prevented such a claim.

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 1868, [2017] WLR(D) 775, [2018] 1 WLR 2572, [2018] HRLR 3, [2018] 3 All ER 95

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At IPT – Liberty (The National Council of Civil Liberties) v The Government Communications Headquarters and Others IPT 5-Dec-2014
The Claimants’ complaints alleged the unlawfulness pursuant to Article 8 (and collaterally Article 10) of the European Convention of Human Rightsof certain assumed activities of the Security Service (also, and colloquially, known as MI5), the Secret . .
Appeal from – Privacy International, Regina (on The Application of) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal Admn 2-Feb-2017
PI appealed from a ruling of the IPT that the provision which empowered the Secretary of State to authorise ‘the taking . . of such action as is specified in the warrant in respect of any property so specified’ was wide enough to encompass computer . .

Cited by:

At CA – Privacy International, Regina (on The Application of) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal and Others SC 15-May-2019
The Court was asked whether the actions of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal were amenable to judicial review: ‘what if any material difference to the court’s approach is made by any differences in context or wording, and more particularly the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.599610

Barker, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Bromley: CA 23 Nov 2001

The court considered when time began to run for an application for judicial review where the question arose in the context of an outline planning permission granted subject to the approval of reserved matters.
The claimant challenged proposed development of the Crystal Palace site.

Judges:

Brooke, Latham LJJ, Burton J

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1766, [2002] Env LR 631, [2002] Env LR 25, [2001] 49 EGCS 117, [2001] NPC 170, [2002] 2 P and CR 8

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Barker v London Borough of Bromley Admn 23-Nov-2001
The claimant challenged the grant of outline permission to develop the Crystal Palace, arguing that no Environmental Assessment had taken place. The need for one depended upon whether the directive had been properly incorporated into English Law. . .
See Also – Barker, Regina (on the Application Of) v London Borough of Bromley and Another CA 8-Feb-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Judicial Review

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218495

Hassib, Regina (on the Application of) v East London and City Mental Health NHS Trust: CA 8 Oct 2002

Application for leave to appeal from refusal of permission to bring judicial review.
Held: ‘There is much in this which is strange and perhaps rather difficult to understand, but I have concluded without hesitation that Jackson J was entirely right to conclude that there were no possible grounds upon which an application for judicial review might succeed. This application for permission to appeal is refused.’

Judges:

May LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1493

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Judicial Review

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.217680

Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Berriman: QBD 2008

The Court permitted parallel case stated and Judicial Review proceedings to take place before it.

Citations:

[2008] 1 WLR 2171

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Kenya Aid Programme v Sheffield City Council Admn 22-Jan-2013
The claimant challenged a decision that it was liable for non domestic rates in respect of some commercial units, on the basis that the use by the charity was not itself charitable.
Held: ‘there is no reason for limiting the ambit of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.567244

Regina v Warwickshire County Council Ex Parte Powergen Plc: QBD 9 Jan 1997

The power to incorporate highway works in planning agreements is limited to subject land. Forbes J said: ‘It is common ground that the new Section 278 was intended to fit into and play its part in the overall legislative system for the controlled development of land through the planning process and I accept that Section 278 must be interpreted accordingly. In my opinion, where the benefit to the public of the proposed highway works, in respect of which an agreement with the Highway Authority is sought under Section 278 of the 1980 Act, has been fully considered and determined in the planning process, because the highway works in question form a detailed and related aspect of the application for development of land in respect of which planning consent has been properly obtained through that planning process, then the Highway Authority’s discretion whether to enter into the Section 278 agreement will necessarily be somewhat limited. In such a case, the matters remaining to be considered by the Highway Authority in the proper exercise of its discretion under Section 278, are likely to be relatively minor in nature. I agree with Mr Hicks that the proper exercise of that discretion by the Highway Authority will not embrace a further and separate reconsideration of the benefit to the public of the highway works in question by reference to the same reasons as those which had already been considered and determined in the planning process. If such a reconsideration by the Highway Authority were to be a proper exercise of its discretion under Section 278, then that would largely frustrate the scheme of the legislation of which Section 278 is conceded to be part. This would be particularly so where, as in the present case, there has been no challenge to the validity of the relevant planning decision pursuant to Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, notwithstanding the Highway Authority’s right to bring such a challenge under that Section.’
As to the challenge by Powergen on Wednesbury grounds: ‘In this case there had been a dispute as to the balance of the public interest with regard to the proposed development. The adequacy of the access arrangements and the related highway works was one factor in that balance. In the course of the planning process, the County Council as Highway Authority argued that, because of the lack of forward visibility, the balance of public interest was against the proposed development for road safety reasons. The dispute was fully argued at the planning appeal and determined by the Secretary of State by his duly appointed Inspector. The Inspector’s conclusions were clear and were not challenged pursuant to Section 288 of the 1990 Act, within the prescribed time limits or at all. Having regard to the terms of Section 284 of the 1990 Act, I accept Mr Hicks’ submission that the Inspector’s conclusions should be treated as both reasonable and final. The present proceedings are not the place to reconsider the merits of the foregoing dispute. Since the development proposals as a whole were found to be in the public interest, so too were the detailed highway works which formed a necessary and related part of those proposals. In those circumstances, I accept Mr Hicks’ submission that no reasonable Highway Authority would, on the sole basis of the arguments as to road safety which had been fully considered and determined in the planning process, refuse to enter into any necessary Section 278 Agreement on the grounds that to do so was not a benefit to the public, thereby preventing the development from proceeding. I have therefore come to the conclusion that the decision of the County Council in this case to refuse to enter into the Section 278 agreement in question is both perverse and unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense. As Mr Hicks succinctly put it, it cannot be reasonable for the Highway Authority to allow a decision of the Secretary of State to be implemented only if it agrees with that decision.’

Judges:

Forbes J

Citations:

Times 09-Jan-1997, (1998) 96 LGR 17

Statutes:

Highways Act 1980 278

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Warwickshire County Council ex parte Powergen Plc CA 30-Apr-1997
Application for leave to appeal – interaction of planning system and section 278. . .
Appeal from – Regina v Warwickshire County Council ex parte Powergen Plc CA 31-Jul-1997
The council as highway authority had objected to a development on the grounds of road safety. The application was subsequently approved by the Secretary of State, but the Council sought to maintain its safety objection.
Held: The highway . .
Cited – Mackaill and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Independent Police Complaints Commission Admn 6-Oct-2014
The three claimants were police officers. They met a senior MP at Sutton Coldfield. They emerged from the meeting and were said to have made misleading statements as to the content of the meeting. The IPCC referred the matters back to local forces . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Judicial Review

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.88272

Jones, Regina (on the Application of) v Mansfield District Council and Another: CA 16 Oct 2003

Plannning permission was sought. Objectors said that it would have such an impact that an environmental impact assessment was required. They now sought judicial review of the decision to proceed without one.
Held: The judge had explained the approach correctly, and the role of the court is to conduct a Wednesbury review of the decision of the council. That review was also correct. It was not a Gillespie case. The committee already had substantial information before it. A planning authority could not rely upon undertakings and conditions to secure compliance with the requirements for an assessment.

Judges:

Lord Justice Laws Ord Justice Dyson And Lord Justice Carnwath

Citations:

[2004] Env LR 391, [2003] EWCA Civ 1408, Times 31-Oct-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988, Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 17 June 1995 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA ECJ 13-Nov-1990
Sympathetic construction of national legislation
LMA OVIEDO sought a declaration that the contracts setting up Commercial International were void (a nullity) since they had been drawn up in order to defraud creditors. Commercial International relied on an EC . .
Cited – Aannemersbedriijf P K Kraaijeveld v Gedeputeerde Staten Van Zuid-Holland ‘the Dutch-Dykes case) ECJ 24-Oct-1996
ECJ The fact that in this case the Member States have a discretion under Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of the directive does not preclude judicial review of the question whether the national authorities exceeded their . .
Cited – Berkeley v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames CA 29-Jun-2001
There is no obligation to refer every application to the Secretary of State where an objector raised a plausible argument that an environmental impact assessment might be needed. In this case the application did not fall within Schedule I, and nor . .
Cited – Regina v Cornwall County Council ex p Hardy Admn 2001
The council granted planning permission although its planning committee had decided that further surveys should be carried out to ensure that bats would not be adversely affected by the proposed development. The question was the adequacy of . .
Cited – Smith v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and Regions and others CA 5-Mar-2003
The court distilled four principles in deciding whether an environmental impact assessment was to be required. At the outline consent stage the planning authority must have sufficient details of any impact on the environment and of any mitigation to . .
Cited – Bellway Urban Renewal Southern v Gillespie CA 27-Mar-2003
The applicant appealed against a decision for development granted in the absence of its own decision. The judge had quashed the decision because of the absence of an environmental impact statement.
Held: When making the screening decision, it . .
Cited – World Wildlife Fund and Others v Autonome Provinz Bozen and Others ECJ 12-Oct-1999
The court considered a project for converting Bolzano airport in Italy from military to civilian use. The national law did not require the project to be subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The court asked whether the national law . .
Cited – Bown, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Transport Admn 26-Mar-2003
The court rejected objections to a proposed bypass on the grounds that it would interfere with otter habitats, and an area which should be designated as a Special Protection Area for Birds.
Held: The Wild Birds Directive had not seperately . .
Cited – Burkett, Regina (on the Application of) v Hammersmith and Fulham Admn 15-May-2003
Outline permission was granted for a large development, reserving certain matters. The applicant challenged the permission saying that the application had not included the information required under the Regulations, and the authority had failed to . .
Appeal from – Jones, Regina (on the Application Of) v Mansfield District Council Admn 20-Jan-2003
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Younger Homes (Northern) Ltd v First Secretary of State and Another Admn 26-Nov-2003
The claimant sought to quash a planning decision on the basis that a screening decision had not been made.
Held: Though the procedures within the authority could have been bettered, there was no formal requirement for a screening option to . .
Cited – Richardson and Orme v North Yorkshire County Council CA 19-Dec-2003
The claimants appealed against an order dismissing their application for a judicial review of the respondent’s grant of planning permission. They contended that a councillor with an interest in the matter had wrongfully not been excluded from the . .
Cited – Champion, Regina (on The Application of) v North Norfolk District Council and Another SC 22-Jul-2015
‘The appeal concerns a proposed development by Crisp Maltings Group Ltd (‘CMGL’) at their Great Ryburgh plant in Norfolk, in the area of the North Norfolk District Council (‘the council’). It was opposed by the appellant, Mr Matthew Champion, a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment, Judicial Review

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.186820

Gjini, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Islington: CA 15 Apr 2003

The appellant challenged the respondent’s decision to reduce the amount paid to her by way of asylum support benefit by the amount of child benefit she received.
Held: The applicant had failed to make proper disclosure to the court of the facts underlying her case. Since the case had begun, the Coucil had reviewed its policies and uprated the benefits payable. The evidence placed before the court as to the various benefits rates and calculations was weak. It was not possible to say that the method of calculation used by the Council was irrational or inaccurate, and the appeal was dismissed.

Judges:

The Vice-Chancellor, Lord Justice Clarke and Lord Justice Kay

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 558

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

The Asylum Support (Interim Provisions) Regulations 1999 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Lloyd’s of London 1993
There is a duty to be performed by those who represent applicants for judicial review to make all appropriate enquiries and to disclose to the court all facts material to the application. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Immigration, Judicial Review

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180738

Kharazmi v London Borough of Lambeth: Admn 11 Feb 2002

The claimant was in local authority housing. She was disabled and sought leave to apply for judicial review of the authority’s failure to include her in a priority category for rehousing.
Held: In view of the impending Court of Appeal decision in Wahid, her case may be arguable and she should be given leave to apply for judicial review. The fact that there had been delay whilst alternatives to litigation had been explored was sufficient to justify forgiving the delay in applying.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Keith

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 132 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21, Housing Act 1996 167

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina (Wahid) v The London Borough of Tower Hamlets Admn 23-Aug-2001
The applicant sought assistance under the National Assistance Act, in the form of housing. He suffered mental illness and was vulnerable. It was argued that the Act imposed a duty on the authority which was regardless of its budgetary limitations. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Judicial Review

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168028

Regina (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 Act. A court will not entertain judicial review proceedings where an alternative remedy subsists.

Judges:

Mr Justice Hooper

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 1079

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Access to Justice Act 1999 54(1)

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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.
Applied – Gregory and Gregory v Turner, Turner; Regina (Morris) v North Somerset Council CA 19-Feb-2003
The parties were involved in a boundary dispute. One granted an enduring power of attorney, and sought to appear as a litigant in person through the power.
Held: The right of a litigant in person to represent himself was a personal right, and . .
Applied – Regina on the Application of M v Immigration Appeal Tribunal; Regina (G) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal CA 16-Dec-2004
The appellants sought judicial review of the refusal of asylum. They sought leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, but that had been refused. They then sought a statutory review by a judge of the Administrative division. That review . .
Applied – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Judicial Review

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167366

Langton, Allen, Regina (on the Application of) v Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Another: Admn 17 Dec 2001

The claimants were farmers, who had been made subject to orders under the Act. They had accumulated maggot waste on their land. The second defendant accepted that the waste included material which would be high risk under the Directive. The defendant had entered the claimant’s land to execute works required under the notice, and the claimant argued this interfered with their property rights under the Convention. The maggot waste which had been supplied to him had included other animal wastes.
Held: Neither the Act for the Order allowed any provision for an appeal. Was judicial review a sufficient alternative remedy? Some of the significant decisions predated the Human Rights Act, and the actual procedure adopted allowed representations to be made, and for review if necessary. The Act was compliant.

Judges:

Mr Nigel Pleming QC (Sitting As A Deputy High Court Judge

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 1047

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Animal Health Act 1981, Animal By-Products Order 1999, European Convention on Human Rights, Council Directive 90/667/EEC of 27th November 1990.

Citing:

Cited – Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
Cited – McLellan v Bracknell Forest Borough Council; Reigate Borough Council v Benfield and Another CA 16-Oct-2001
The tenant was issued with a notice to quit for unpaid rent, within the first year, during an ‘introductory tenancy.’ She sought judicial review on the basis that the reduced security of tenure infringed her human rights.
Held: Review was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture, Animals, Human Rights, Judicial Review, Administrative

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167368

Rajkumar v Lalla, Wooding, Mohammed, Walters, Seemungal, (Public Service Commission) and Baptiste (The Commissioner of Prisons): PC 29 Nov 2001

(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant complained that he had not been treated fairly as a civil servant in having been passed over for promotion. He sought to appeal a finding on judicial review.
Held: While some proceedings for judicial review require more elaborate procedures, it is in no sense an optional procedure to be contrasted with some more formal procedure, and no leave is required from a final order in such proceedings. The appellant had been an acting Prison Officer grade II for ten years. The decision of the judge was in error, but the committee could not order his appointment. The case was remitted for the Civil Service Commission for their active consideration, and in the absence of a positive decision, full reasons were to be given.

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Millett, Sir Andrew Leggatt

Citations:

Appeal No 1 of 2001, [2001] UKPC 53

Links:

PC, PC, PC, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Citing:

Cited – Jones v Solomon 1986
(Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago) Judicial review proceedings do not involve the full trial process, and are therefore summary. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Employment, Judicial Review

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.166941

Regina v Ssat Chairman Ex Parte O’Hara: QBD 7 Dec 1994

Chairman’s refusal to allow renewal of an appeal out of time for a claimant with Down’s syndrome was not Wednesbury unreasonable. The regulations expressly forbade a renewal of such an application once refused.

Citations:

Gazette 07-Dec-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits, Judicial Review

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88680

Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Ex parte Challenger: QBD 11 Jul 2000

An order was due to come into effect, and there was to be a public enquiry. The applicants sought review of the decision not to provide legal assistance for local objectors, on the grounds that it would prejudice their rights under the Human Rights Act, alleging breach of their rights to a fair trial by inequality of arms.. The court held that it would not be correct to allow a judicial review to give current effect to an Act which itself had not yet come into effect.

Citations:

Times 11-Jul-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Judicial Review, Human Rights

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88623

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another Ex Parte Bulger: QBD 7 Mar 2001

The family of a murder victim has no standing to intervene to challenge the tariff set for the sentence to be served by the youths convicted of the murder. They had been invited to state the impact of their son’s death, but not the sentence to be served. Although the standing required for judicial review was now generally lower, the fact of having made representations did not give them any such standing. When fixing the tariff of sentence to be served by a youth, the court must look on each occasion also at questions of rehabilitation.

Citations:

Times 07-Mar-2001, [2001] 3 All E R 449

Statutes:

Children and Young Persons Act 1933 44, Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 82A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (on the Application of Dudson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Lord Chief Justice Admn 21-Nov-2003
The applicant had been sentenced to detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure. He sought a judicial review of the Lord Chief Justice’s recommendation to the Home Secretary for the minimum term he was to serve.
Held: In exercising this function, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Judicial Review

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88628

Regina v Leicester Crown Court, ex parte Commissioners of Customs and Excise: QBD 23 Feb 2001

An order made by a judge that the prosecution pay the defence’s costs, which had been unnecessarily incurred after a failure properly to disclose evidence to them, was an order made as part of the Crown Court trial, and so was not susceptible to judicial review.

Citations:

Times 23-Feb-2001

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 19, Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 (1986 No 1335)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Costs, Judicial Review

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88533

Regina v Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrates ex parte Levy: Admn 16 Jun 1997

The court was asked whether a defendant can be convicted of driving while disqualified notwithstanding that, subsequent to the act of driving in question, he has successfully appealed against the conviction for which he had earlier been disqualified? The magistrates refused to state a case, saying that the request was frivolous.
Held:
As to the refusal to state a case, if there is a real point to be argued, then a case should have been stated. Simon Brown LJ said: ‘On 13th November 1996 the Magistrate refused to state a case, explaining fully and helpfully the reasons why he regarded the applicant’s argument as unsustainable and why in the result he concluded that the application was frivolous within the meaning of section 111(5) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980.
Invited by the applicant’s solicitors on 4th December 1996 to reconsider his decision, the Magistrate on 11th December refused, pointing out that, in any event, ‘the case has in effect been stated in the body of that letter’ (i.e. his earlier letter of 13th November). The same day, 11th December 1996, the applicant brought judicial review proceedings seeking an order for mandamus to require the respondent Magistrate to state a case. Leave to move was granted . . on 26th January 1997, and it was in that form that the matter first came before us today. As, however, I have had occasion to remark in a number of other cases, such a course, although conventional and technically correct, is in fact, in circumstances such as arise here, absurdly inconvenient. If it succeeds, all it produces is an order for a case to be stated which in reality advances the resolution of the substantive issue not one jot. Far better surely, in a case like this where the facts are not in dispute and where in any event the Magistrate has, as he observed, already in effect stated the case, that the true issue should be placed directly before this court (as so easily it can be) by way of a straightforward judicial review challenge to the legality of the conviction . . With these considerations in mind, we gave leave at the outset of the hearing to amend the proceedings to include a separate judicial review challenge going directly to the conviction on 23rd October 1996 so as to raise squarely for present decision – rather than merely for the expression of a prima facie view upon – the critical issue arising. I should just note that we took this course with the agreement not merely of the applicant, but also of the Crown Prosecution Service who fortunately were represented before us.’

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ, Garland J

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 559

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Magistrates’ Court Act 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Sunworld Limited v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council QBD 2000
The company faced a prosecution under the 1968 Act, in respect of a brochure. On conviction, the company asked the Crown Court to state a case for the Divisional Court. The Recorder refused as to two points, saying that they were decisions of fact . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates, Judicial Review

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137504

Regina v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Ex Parte the World Development Movement Ltd: QBD 11 Jan 1995

Judicial Review was granted in respect of a decision to fund the Pergau Dam. There was a possible argument that it involved a misuse of money which had been intended for foreign aid.

Citations:

Independent 11-Jan-1995, [1995] 1 WLR 386

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Jennings v Buchanan PC 14-Jul-2004
(New Zealand) (Attorney General of New Zealand intervening) The defendant MP had made a statement in Parliament which attracted parliamentary privilege. In a subsequent newspaper interview, he said ‘he did not resile from his claim’. He defended the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.87721

Steed v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 26 May 2000

The claimant surrendered guns and ammunition under the 1997 Act, and was due to be compensated. His claim was not settled, and he commenced an action in the County Court for the sums claimed. The defendant denied any duty to pay up within a reasonable period, and asserted that any claim must be by way of judicial review. The defendant appealed and lost the case in the Court of Appeal, and appealed again.
Held: It was possible for a citizen to claim by way of summons sums due to him after the confiscation of his handguns, where the delay became unreasonable. There was no need to begin such proceedings by judicial review where the issue was not so much a decision, but rather the failure to deliver a statutory requirement within a reasonable time. Payment for scheduled types of handguns could be made within 30 days, and for guns which required individual valuation, 60 days was reasonable.

Judges:

Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Woolf M.R. Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Clyde Lord Millett

Citations:

Times 26-May-2000, Gazette 08-Jun-2000, [2000] UKHL 32, [2000] 3 All ER 226, [2000] 1 WLR 1169

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, Firearms Act 1968 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Steed v Secretary of State for Home Office CA 1-May-1998
The plaintiff claimed compensation after surrendering his firearm and ammunition. There had been a long delay in processing the claim, and he sued. The Home Office entered a defence denying that there was any obligation to process claims within a . .
Cited – Rye, Henson and J B Trustees Limited Trustees of Dennis Rye Pension Fund v Sheffield City Council and Frederick Henson and Rye (the Trustees of the Dennis Rye 1992 Grandchildren Settlement Fund) v Sheffield City Council CA 31-Jul-1997
Courts must not get tied up in public law/private law judicial review or other arguments when remedies and results provided by both jurisdictions are similar. The guidelines set down involved: ‘not only considering the technical questions of the . .
Cited – O’Reilly v Mackman HL 1982
Remission of Sentence is a Privilege not a Right
The plaintiffs had begun their action, to challenge their loss of remission as prisoners, by means of a writ, rather than by an action for judicial review, and so had sidestepped the requirement for the action to be brought within strict time . .
Cited – Cocks v Thanet District Council HL 25-Nov-1981
The applicant had been given temporary accomodation under the Act. He sought to enforce the obligation on the respondent to house him permanently by an action in the county court. The authority said the action should have been by judicial review. . .
Cited – Mercury Communications Ltd v Director General of Telecommunications and Another HL 10-Feb-1995
The Secretary of State’s decision on the grant of a Telecommunications licence was challengeable by Summons and not by Judicial Review. A dispute between Mercury and BT as to charges as set by the Director General is a private not a public dispute. . .
Cited – Roy v Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Family Practitioner Committee HL 6-Feb-1992
The respondent had withheld part of the plaintiff’s GP payments saying that he had failed to devote himself full time to his practice. The plaintiff sued, and the defendant sought to strike out his application, saying that his application had to be . .

Cited by:

Cited – Phonographic Performance Limited v Department of Trade and Industry HM Attorney General ChD 23-Jul-2004
The claimant represented the interests of copyright holders, and complained that the defendant had failed to implement the Directive properly, leaving them unable properly to collect royalties in the music rental market. The respondent argued that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Judicial Review

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89525

Stevenage Borough Football Club Ltd v The Football League Ltd: ChD 1 Aug 1996

The Football League is a body subject to judicial review, since it exercises its control over members in the public interest.

Citations:

Times 01-Aug-1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Stevenage Borough Football Club Limited v Football League Limited CA 6-Aug-1996
Unfair changes to the rules for the promotion of sports clubs between leagues could not be challenged retrospectively after the team in question had impliedly accepted the rules. An injunction granted may within a sporting league context have unfair . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Judicial Review

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89547

Dubai Bank Ltd v Galadari (No 2): CA 1990

An ex parte Mareva injunction had been obtained. It was said that there had been material non-disclosure of important facts. The plaintiff bank had been under the control of the Galadaris between 1970 and 1985, when it was taken over by the Government of Dubai. The bank complained that large amounts of interest on certain deposits had been unlawfully diverted into their own pockets. The bank obtained an ex parte Mareva injunction and ancillary orders for disclosure of assets, but this was later discharged by Morritt J. on the grounds that important facts known to the Government of Dubai had not been disclosed.
Held: The court refused to interfere with his exercise of his discretion. It was submitted on behalf of the bank that even where there had been non-disclosure on an ex parte application, the court should only discharge an injunction or refuse to continue an injunction if the court was satisfied that the non-disclosure was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court or a wilful failure to inquire as to the obvious. The phrase ‘whose . . affidavits’ extends to any affidavit sworn by a deponent who is not a party, but which is procured by and filed or used on behalf of a party. A copy of an unprivileged document does not become privileged merely because the copy is made for litigious purposes.
Dillon LJ said: ‘It is now accepted in this Court that, even if there has been material non-disclosure, the Court has a discretion whether or not to discharge an order obtained ex parte and a discretion whether or not to grant fresh injunctive relief Discharge of the order is not automatic on any non-disclosure being established of any fact known to the applicant which is found by the Court to have been material.’
Staughton LJ said that the bank had put forward a good arguable case, and a prima facie case for likelihood of dissipation: ‘In any event there was also non-disclosure to be considered before the injunction was continued. The authorities show plainly that non-disclosure will, in an appropriate case, not only be a ground for discharging an ex parte order, but also a ground for refusing to make a fresh order inter partes. At least in one respect there was here non-disclosure which was in my view both serious and culpable. The Galadaris had specified what they said was their defence to the claim, and there can scarcely be any more important topic of disclosure than that. As to culpability, it is said the Dubai Bank did not know the facts, and that those whom they consulted in the Government of Dubai had forgotten them. But the letters were still in the Government’s possession . . Once serious and culpable non-disclosure was established, the Judge had a balancing task to perform. On the one hand if justice required that a fresh injunction should be granted (which in the Judge’s view it did not, but the contrary was arguable), it might be thought unjust to refuse one on the grounds of non-disclosure. On the other hand the Courts must uphold and enforce the duty of disclosure, as a deterrent to others, if they are not to be deceived on ex parte applications. The conflict between those principles is well illustrated in a passage from the judgment of Lord Justice Woolf in the Behbehani case.’

Judges:

Slade LJ, Dillon LJ

Citations:

[1990] 1 WLR 731, [1990] Ch 98, [1990] 1 Lloyds Rep 120

Statutes:

RSC (NI) Order Rulle 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Tweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland HL 13-Dec-2006
(Northern Ireland) The applicant sought judicial review of a decision not to disclose documents held by the respondent to him saying that the refusal was disproportionate and infringed his human rights. The respondents said that the documents were . .
Cited – Expandable Ltd and Another v Rubin CA 11-Feb-2008
The defendant’s witness statement referred to a letter written to him by the defendant’s solicitor. The claimant appealed refusal of an order for its disclosure.
Held: The appeal failed. The letter was protected by legal professional . .
See Also – Dubai Bank Ltd v Galadari CA 1990
A document created with a view to its being submitted to solicitors for advice does not, despite its purpose, attract privilege, even though the ‘pre-existing documents, and even documents on public records, have been selected by a solicitor for the . .
Cited – Expandable Ltd and Another v Rubin CA 11-Feb-2008
The defendant’s witness statement referred to a letter written to him by the defendant’s solicitor. The claimant appealed refusal of an order for its disclosure.
Held: The appeal failed. The letter was protected by legal professional . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.247440

Regina v Islington London Borough Council, ex parte G A (a Child): Admn 20 Oct 2000

The child was severely disabled and was to be schooled as a weekday boarder 75 miles from home. He sought assistance with the travelling expenses when his condition worsened and the arrangements became more burdensome.
Held: It was not open to a local authority to refuse to contribute to a child’s travelling expenses to a school named in his statement, on the basis that he might attend another school nearby which was not named as appropriate in his statement of special educational needs, or to make attendance conditional upon an agreement regarding payment by the parents of travelling expenses. The council’s decision was Wednesbury unreasonable since they had failed to consider the changes in the child’s transport needs since the statement was made, and the parents’ financial circumstances. Any bar to a judicial review operated against the parents not the child. ‘the matter must go back to the authority which must reconsider its decision giving proper consideration to all the changes of circumstances and not taking into account of its belief that G.A.’s needs could be met at a local school not named in the statement.’

Judges:

Jack Heatson QC

Citations:

Times 20-Oct-2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 390

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Education Act 1996 324(5)(a)(ii), 19 509

Citing:

Cited – Regina v London Borough of Havering ex parte ‘K’ Admn 20-Aug-1997
A statement of special education needs stated in Part IV that the child’s mother was to be responsible for providing transport at her own expense. She subsequently became unable to maintain the transport provision due to her personal circumstances . .
Cited – Surrey County Council v Ministry of Education 1953
The council had a scheme whereby for those who lived more than the walking distance from a school, only transport from their homes to the walking distance would be free. The scheme failed because transport has to be to and from school. A local . .
Cited – Regina v Devon County Council, ex parte George HL 1989
A child lived 2.8 miles from school. The journey was rural and unlit. Whe he was 8, the education authority withdrew free transport saying it was practicable for a parent to walk with him.
Held: The decision whether to offer support was that . .
Cited – Regina v East Sussex County Council Ex Parte T QBD 29-Apr-1997
Financial constraints on a local authority may be is relevant as between a choice of provisions but not as to whether to make provision at all. The court is not the arbiter of what constitute suitable arrangements and the decision as to suitability . .
Cited – Robert Duhaney White v London Borough of Ealing and Special Educational Needs Tribunal Admn 8-Jul-1997
Gilliatt The court heard three separate appeals from decisions of SENTs where parents wished their autistic children to attend the Boston Higashi School, USA which involved a residential placement. Fees to attend . .
Cited – Jenkins v Howells KBD 1949
A pupil had been continuously away from school because her mother was a chronic invalid and it was necessary for the girl to assist with housework. When the mother was prosecuted pursuant to the Act, she contended that her daughter’s absence was the . .
Cited – Re C (a minor) CA 1994
The question was whether a school which was not that of parental choice could be regarded as suitable or, to put it the other way round, whether free transport had to be provided where a parent had chosen a school which was not the nearest to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Judicial Review

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88513

Regina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex Parte Eastaway: HL 8 Nov 2000

Where the Court of Appeal had refused permission to apply for judicial review after a similar refusal by a judge, that decision was also, by implication, a refusal to grant permission to appeal against the judge’s decision, and there was no scope for a further appeal to the House of Lords. It is not the role of the highest court to correct errors in the application of settled law.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Steyn Lord Hoffmann Lord Clyde Lord Millett

Citations:

Times 08-Nov-2000, Gazette 30-Nov-2000, [2000] UKHL 56, [2000] 1 WLR 2222, [2000] 1 All ER 27

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 6, Supreme Court Act 1981 18(1A) 31(3), Access to Justice Act 1999 54, Civil Procedure (Amendment Rules) 2000 (SI 221/2000), Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 3

Citing:

Cited – Practice Direction (Judicial Review: Appeals) CA 1982
The Court gave a practice direction on recourse to the Court of Appeal following refusal of leave to apply for judicial review by a Divisional Court or a single judge, describing such a refusal as ‘appealable to the Court of Appeal’. . .
Cited – Practice Direction (Court of Appeal) (Civil Division) CA 19-Apr-1999
As part of the modernisation and reform of civil procedure, all the principal Court of Appeal practice directions are consolidated now into this one document handed down by the court.
‘2. Permission to appeal
2.1 When is permission . .
Cited – Lane v Esdaile HL 5-May-1891
The court considered the extent of the House’s jurisdiction as an appellate court. Section 3 of the 1876 Act provided that an appeal should lie to the House of Lords from ‘any order or judgment of . . Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal in England’. The . .
Cited – Kemper Reinsurance Company v The Minister of Finance and others PC 5-May-1998
(Bermuda) An appeal Court did have jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the discharge of leave to apply for certiorari order, since this was outside scope of the rule in Lane v Esdaille.
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘Nevertheless, the limited nature . .
Cited – In re Housing of the Working Classes Act 1890, Ex parte Stevenson CA 1892
A party had applied to a judge for what in effect amounted to leave to appeal and had been refused.
Held: Wherever power is given to a legal authority to grant or refuse leave to appeal, the decision of that authority is, from the very nature . .
Cited – In re Poh HL 1983
The applicant had unsuccessfully applied to the Divisional Court for leave to apply for judicial review and renewed his application, equally unsuccessfully, to the Court of Appeal. He then petitioned for leave to appeal to the House of Lords.

Cited by:

See Also – Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Eastaway CA 6-Apr-2001
. .
See Also – Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Eastaway; Re Blackspur Group (No 3), Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Davies and Others (No 2) CA 13-Sep-2001
. .
See Also – Eastaway v The United Kingdom ECHR 20-Jul-2004
The applicant had been proceeded against after the collapse of companies in which he was involved with very substantial debts. The proceedings had begun in July 1990, and lasted nearly nine years.
Held: Where proceedings could be expected to . .
See Also – In Re Blackspur Group Plc; Secretary of State v Eastaway ChD 21-Jun-2001
The director was amongst a group against whom a director disqualification order was sought. He offered an undertaking, but the Secretary of State refused to accept this unless it was accompanied by a statement as to the factual basis on which it was . .
See Also – Eastaway v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and similar ChD 2-Mar-2006
. .
See Also – Eastaway v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 10-May-2007
The applicant had been subject to company director disqualification proceedings. Eventually he gave an undertaking not to act as a company director, but then succeeded at the ECHR in a complaint of delay. He now sought release from his undertaking . .
Cited – Cooper v HM Attorney General QBD 30-Sep-2008
The claimant sought damages from the court saying that it had failed to properly apply European law. It had rejected his applications for judicial review.
Held: Any failure by the court was not sufficiently manifest to bring the case within . .
Cited – Coke-Wallis, Regina (on The Application of) v Institute of Chartered Accountants In England and Wales SC 19-Jan-2011
The appellant chartered accountant had been convicted in Jersey after removing documents from his offices relating to a disputed trust and in breach of an order from his professional institute. The court now considered the relevance and application . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Judicial Review

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85546

Regina v Bow County Court Ex parte Pelling: QBD 8 Mar 1999

Mr Pelling sought to act as a McKenzie friend. On being refused he sought judicial review of he decision to exclude him.
Held: Review was refused. A McKenzie friend has himself no locus to challenge a decision by a county court judge not to allow him to be present in a chambers appointment; that right belongs to the litigant only. A judge in chambers can exclude a McKenzie friend, but not when in open court.

Judges:

Otton LJ, Steel J

Citations:

Times 08-Mar-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 181

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Collier v Hicks 7-Jun-1831
Trespass for assaulting, and turning plaintiff out of a police office. Plea, that two of the defendants, being justices of the peace, were assembled in a police office to adjudicate upon an information against AB for an offence against a penal . .
Cited – McKenzie v McKenzie CA 10-Jul-1970
Mr McKenzie was a litigant in person who wished to be assisted by a young Australian barrister, gratuitously, in the conduct of his case by sitting beside the husband in Court and prompting him. The hearing was in open Court . The friend’s conduct . .
Cited – Re G (Chambers Proceedings: McKenzie friend) CA 10-Jul-1991
A proposed McKenzie friend was a solicitor who was to be paid, but did not wish to be on the record. H appealed a refusal to allow him to be present in chambers. The Judge had taken the view that the proceedings were of a highly confidential nature . .
Cited – Re G (Chambers Proceedings: McKenzie friend) CA 10-Jul-1991
A proposed McKenzie friend was a solicitor who was to be paid, but did not wish to be on the record. H appealed a refusal to allow him to be present in chambers. The Judge had taken the view that the proceedings were of a highly confidential nature . .
Not binding – In Re H (A Minor) (Chambers Proceedings: Mckenzie Friend) CA 6-May-1997
A father sought ex parte, permission to appeal against orders in the county court. The first had refused to allow him to have a McKenzie friend in an application for contact to his daughter. The Recorder had taken the view that because the . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Brind HL 7-Feb-1991
The Home Secretary had issued directives to the BBC and IBA prohibiting the broadcasting of speech by representatives of proscribed terrorist organisations. The applicant journalists challenged the legality of the directives on the ground that they . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Bow County Court, Ex Parte Pelling CA 17-Dec-1999
Access to the court given to a McKenzie Friend should normally be given in matters in open court, but when it came to matters being heard in chambers, the judge had discretion as to who he would hear. The right is in any event that of the litigant, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85131

Mercury Communications Ltd v Director General of Telecommunications and Another: HL 10 Feb 1995

The Secretary of State’s decision on the grant of a Telecommunications licence was challengeable by Summons and not by Judicial Review. A dispute between Mercury and BT as to charges as set by the Director General is a private not a public dispute. The purpose of the rule of procedural exclusivity was stated to be prevention of an abuse of the process of the court, and that purpose is of prime importance in determining the reach of the general rule.
Lord Slynn said: ‘The recognition by Lord Diplock that exceptions exist to the general rule may introduce some uncertainty but it is a small price to pay to avoid the over-rigid demarcation between procedures reminiscent of earlier disputes as to the forms of action and of disputes as to the competence of jurisdictions apparently encountered in civil law countries where a distinction between public and private law has been recognised . . The experience of other countries seems to show that the working out of this distinction is not always an easy matter. In the absence of the single procedure allowing all remedies-quashing, injunctive and declaratory relief, damages-some flexibility as to the use of different procedures is necessary. It has to be borne in mind that the overriding question is whether the proceedings constitute an abuse of the process of the court.’

Judges:

Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead

Citations:

Independent 16-Feb-1995, Times 10-Feb-1995, [1996] 1 WLR 48, [1995] UKHL 12, [1996] 1 All ER 575, [1995] CLC 266, [1998] Masons CLR Rep 39

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Telecommunications Act 1984 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Mercury Communications Ltd v Director General of Telecommunications and Another CA 3-Aug-1994
Parties having contracted to resolve differences by an agreed procedure, could not go back on that agreement. The court will not replace an agreement for a resolution method chosen by parties with own advice and freely. . .
Cited – O’Reilly v Mackman HL 1982
Remission of Sentence is a Privilege not a Right
The plaintiffs had begun their action, to challenge their loss of remission as prisoners, by means of a writ, rather than by an action for judicial review, and so had sidestepped the requirement for the action to be brought within strict time . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Mercury Communications Ltd v Director General of Telecommunications and Another CA 3-Aug-1994
Parties having contracted to resolve differences by an agreed procedure, could not go back on that agreement. The court will not replace an agreement for a resolution method chosen by parties with own advice and freely. . .
Cited – Boddington v British Transport Police HL 2-Apr-1998
The defendant had been convicted, under regulations made under the Act, of smoking in a railway carriage. He sought to challenge the validity of the regulations themselves. He wanted to argue that the power to ban smoking on carriages did not . .
Cited – Steed v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 26-May-2000
The claimant surrendered guns and ammunition under the 1997 Act, and was due to be compensated. His claim was not settled, and he commenced an action in the County Court for the sums claimed. The defendant denied any duty to pay up within a . .
Cited – Valentines Homes and Construction Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs CA 31-Mar-2010
The claimant had applied for judicial review of a decision by the defendant to seek to recover a debt from them. The issue had however been settled in the County Court. Costs were ordered against them, and they now appealed. In a small company the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Judicial Review

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.83655

Ealing Corporation v Jones: CA 1959

An enforcement notice served by the local planning authority was quashed by an inferior court. The authority sought to appeal pursuant to provisions which allowed a right of appeal to ‘any person aggrieved’.
Held: Assuming the words ‘any person’ were capable of including a local planning authority, the authority in question was not a ‘person aggrieved’ as no financial or legal burden had been placed upon it as a result of the decision. If parliament had intended the local planning authority to have a right of appeal, it would have said so clearly and used words which placed the matter beyond all doubt.
Donovan J said: ‘I think it is true that if one came to the expression without reference to judicial decision one would say that the words ‘person aggrieved by a decision’ mean no more than a person who had had the decision given against him; but the courts have decided that the words mean more than that, and have held that the word ‘aggrieved’ is not synonymous in this context with the word ‘dissatisfied’. The word `aggrieved’ connotes some legal grievance, for example, a deprivation of something, an adverse effect on the title to something, and so on.’
Lord Parker CJ said that it is easier to say what will not constitute a person aggrieved than it is to say what ‘person aggrieved’ includes.

Judges:

Donovan J, Lord Parker CJ

Citations:

[1959] 1 QB 384, [1959] 2 WLR 194, [1959] 1 All ER 286

Cited by:

Cited – Walton v The Scottish Ministers SC 17-Oct-2012
The appellant, former chair of a road activist group, challenged certain roads orders saying that the respondent had not carried out the required environmental assessment. His claim was that the road had been adopted without the consultation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.470544

Allen v West Yorkshire Probation Service: QBD 20 Feb 2001

Where a defendant felt that a sentence imposed by magistrates was wrong, he should take the issue to the Crown Court by way of appeal. It was wrong to try to deal with it by way of judicial review or appeal by way of case stated. As much as anything else the greater delay would lead to additional difficulties in carrying out any sentence.

Citations:

Times 20-Feb-2001

Judicial Review, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77746

Regina v Lord Chancellor ex parte the Law Society (2): QBD 22 Jun 1993

The introduction of a Standard Fees Criminal Legal Aid regime did not require prior consultation with the Law Society. The rules had been imposed in accordance with the words of the enabling statute.

Citations:

Independent 22-Jun-1993, Times 25-Jun-1993

Statutes:

Legal Aid Act 1988 34

Judicial Review, Costs, Legal Aid, Legal Professions

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.163155

Regina v Herrod, ex parte Leeds City District Council: CA 1976

Lord Denning MR described the game bingo: ‘I expect that everybody knows ordinary bingo. It is played at bazaars, sales of work [sic: in [1976] 1 All ER 273, at 279c, the phrase is ‘places of work’], and so forth, for small prizes and is perfectly lawful. Now prize bingo is like ordinary bingo, but played with sophisticated apparatus. Instead of cards with numbers on them, there are dials facing the players. A player puts in a coin (5p for two cards). Thereupon two dials light up showing numbers corresponding to two cards. When the game starts, instead of someone drawing a number out of a hat, a machine throws a ball into the air. A gaily dressed lady plucks one of them and calls out the number. If it is one of the numbers on the dial, the player crosses it out by pulling a cover over it. If he gets all his numbers crossed out correctly before the other players, he gets a prize. This is obviously a lottery or a game of chance, but it is not a ‘gaming machine’ because the element of chance is not ‘provided by means of the machine’ but means of the gay lady: see section 26(2) of the Gaming Act 1968.
In some of these premises there are also some ‘one-armed bandits.’ These are gaming machines. The player puts in a coin. This enables him to pull a handle to forecast a result. Cylinders revolve and give an answer. If he succeeds, he gets the winnings. If he fails, he loses his money. This is undoubtedly a ‘gaming machine’ because the element of chance is provided by means of a machine: see section 26(1) of the Act of 1968 and Capper v. Baldwin [1965] 2 QB 53.’
Lord Denning MR said: ‘If a person comes to the High Court seeking certiorari to quash the decision of the Crown Court – or any other tribunal for that matter-he should act promptly and before the other party has taken any step on the faith of the decision. Else he may find that the High Court will refuse him a remedy. If he has been guilty of any delay at all, it is for him to get over it and not for the other side’.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1976] QB 540

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – HM Revenue and Customs v The Rank Group Plc CA 30-Oct-2013
The tax payer had sought repayment of sums of VAT charged to a particular form of gaming, saying that the rules infringed the principles of fiscal neutrality under European law. HMRC now appealed against a finding that the machines were exempt from . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v The Rank Group Plc SC 8-Jul-2015
The question raised by this appeal is whether, during the period 1 October 2002 to 5 December 2005, the takings on a particular category of gaming machines operated by the appellants were subject to VAT. The answer depends on whether the takings . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Licensing, Judicial Review

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.589259

Regina v Hillingdon London Borough Council, Ex parte Royco Homes Ltd: 1974

A planning condition imposed solely for some other purpose or purposes, such as furtherance of the housing policy of the local authority, will not be valid as a planning condition.
As to the availability of judicial review or certiorari, Lord Widgery CJ said: ‘it has always been a principle that certiorari will go only where there is no other equally effective and convenient remedy . . An application for certiorari has however this advantage that it is speedier and cheaper than the other methods and in a proper case therefore it may well be right to allow it to be used . I would, however, define a proper case as being one where the decision in question is liable to be upset as a matter of law because on its face it is clearly made without jurisdiction or in consequence of an error of law . . it has always been a principle that certiorari will go only where there is no other equally effective and convenient remedy.’

Judges:

Lord Widgery CJ

Citations:

[1974] QB 720, [1974] 2 All ER 643, [1974] 2 WLR 805

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation CA 10-Nov-1947
Administrative Discretion to be Used Reasonably
The applicant challenged the manner of decision making as to the conditions which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema on Sundays. It had not been allowed to admit children under 15 years of age. The statute provided no appeal . .

Cited by:

Cited – Wright, Regina (on The Application of Wright) v Resilient Energy Severndale Ltd and Another SC 20-Nov-2019
W challenged the grant of planning permission for the change of use of agricultural land to allow erection of a wind turbine, saying that the authority had taken into account a promise by the land owner to run the scheme as a community development . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Judicial Review

Leading Case

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.471207

Regina (Save) v Gateshead Metropolian Borough Council: Admn 2010

Judges:

Ouseley J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2919 (Admin)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Cala Homes (South) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Admn 16-Dec-2010
Local authorities were presently bound to plan future housing developments in accordance with Regional Spatial Strategies which the new government intended to abolish. The respondent had previously been told by the court that primary legislation was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Judicial Review

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.428417

Morgan v Lloyd: 1981

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1981] LLR 423

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Aurangzeb, Regina (on the Application of) v the Law Society of England and Wales Admn 7-May-2003
The claimant sought judicial review of decisions of the Law Society as to his alleged practise as a solicitor in breach of conditions previously imposed, and of failure to notify the Society of his bankruptcy.
Held: The request failed. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.263522

Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Islington London Borough Council: CA 19 Jul 1991

The court considered the proper range within which challenges to affidavit evidence given in judicial reviw proceedings should be kept. Dillon LJ said: ‘The . . argument is stated to have been that an applicant is not entitled to go behind an affidavit in order to seek to ascertain whether it is correct or not unless there is some material available outside that contained in the affidavit to suggest that in some material respect the affidavit is not accurate. Without some prima facie case for suggesting that the affidavit is in some respects incorrect it is improper to allow discovery of documents, the only purpose of which would be to act as a challenge to the accuracy of the affidavit. With that I would, in general, agree – and indeed the decision binds us. But I would add the qualification that if the affidavit only deals partially, and not sufficiently adequately, with an issue it may be appropriate to order discovery to supplement the affidavit, rather than to challenge its accuracy. That must depend on the nature of the issue.’
McCowan LJ: ‘The second matter which emerges from the authorities is that unless the applicant in judicial review is in a position to assert that the evidence relied on by a minister is false, or at least inaccurate, it is inappropriate to grant discovery in order to allow the applicant to check the accuracy of the evidence in question.’

Judges:

Dillon LJ, McCowan LJ

Citations:

[1991] CAT 1991/761.

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Tweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland HL 13-Dec-2006
(Northern Ireland) The applicant sought judicial review of a decision not to disclose documents held by the respondent to him saying that the refusal was disproportionate and infringed his human rights. The respondents said that the documents were . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ex Parte the World Development Movement Ltd Admn 10-Nov-1994
The Movement sought to challenge decisions of the Secretary of state to give economic aid to the Pergau Dam, saying that it was not required ‘for the purpose of promoting the development’ of Malaysia. It was said to be uneconomic and damaging. It . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.247416

Regina (International Masters Publishers Ltd) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners: QBD 19 Jan 2006

The taxpayer sold book with associated CDs. The respondent refused to apply the ESC 37 concession. There was doubt its capacity to do so, but the taxpayer first lodged an appeal. It now sought leave to apply for judicial review of the decision out of time.
Held: The applicant had been aware of the possibility of applying for judicial review from the start. It had instead lodged an appeal hoping to save costs. In those circumstances leave would be refused. The delay was substantial. The company should have notified the respondents of its doubts, and sought an agreement from the respondent to an extension of time to apply for a judicial review.

Citations:

Times 30-Jan-2006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – International Masters Publishers Ltd v Revenue and Customs VDT 25-Apr-2005
SINGLE OR MULTIPLE SUPPLY – CD book as part of a series on classic composers comprising a CD and 12 pages of written material and illustrations – principal supply is that of the CD – appeal dismissed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Judicial Review

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.238287

Regina v Chief Constable, ex parte McKenna: 1992

A detained person challenged the police handling of his case by way of judicial review.

Citations:

[1992] NI 116

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Cited by:

Cited – Cullen v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (Northern Ireland) HL 10-Jul-2003
The claimant had been arrested. He had been refused access to a solicitor whilst detaiined, but, in breach of statutory duty, he had not been given reasons as to why access was denied. He sought damages for that failure.
Held: If damages were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.184498

Regina (DR) (AM) v St George’s Catholic School and Others, Regina (A) v Kingsmead School Governors and Another: CA 13 Dec 2002

The applicants appealed the refusal of judicial review of the refusals of their appeals against exclusion from school.
Held: The Act provided a full appeal procedure from the initial decision of the school’s head teacher, first to the governors, and then to an independent appeal panel. They argued that Rowlands established that a right to a judicial review of an earlier decision survived a fairly conducted appeal against that decision.
Held: The Rowlands case applied only where a possibility of an appeal remained. A closer case was McMahon. The court must look at the statutory scheme as a whole. Where an early defect was capable of being cured by the later appeals, it must be rare (perhaps as in Calvin) for any right of review to survive.

Judges:

Lord Justice Keene, Lord Justice Kay, Lord Justice Simon Brown

Citations:

Times 19-Dec-2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Hereford Magistrates’ Court (ex parte Rowlands, Ingram); Regina v Harrow Youth Court (ex parte Prussia) Admn 10-Feb-1997
The power to adjourn a trial is conferred upon Justices by statute. The divisional court will intervene where defendants have been deprived of a fair opportunity to present their case. The decision whether to grant an adjournment is not a mechanical . .
Appealed from – Regina (A) v Kingsmead School Governors and Another QBD 13-Mar-2002
A permanently excluded pupil sought judicial review of the decision to exclude him. The school resisted saying that since there remained an avenue of appeal, a judicial review was inappropriate. He could still ask for a review of the decision of the . .
Cited – Lloyd v McMahon HL 12-Mar-1987
The district auditor had issued a certificate under the 1982 Act surcharging the appellant councillors in the sum of 106,103, pounds being the amount of a loss incurred or deficiency caused, as the auditor found, by their wilful misconduct.
Cited – Calvin v Carr PC 15-Jan-1979
(New South Wales) It was argued that a decision of the stewards of the Australian Jockey Club was void for having been made in breach of the rules of natural justice.
Held: The stewards were entitled to use the evidence of their eyes and their . .

Cited by:

Appealed To – Regina (A) v Kingsmead School Governors and Another QBD 13-Mar-2002
A permanently excluded pupil sought judicial review of the decision to exclude him. The school resisted saying that since there remained an avenue of appeal, a judicial review was inappropriate. He could still ask for a review of the decision of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Judicial Review

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.178446

Regina (A) v Kingsmead School Governors and Another: QBD 13 Mar 2002

A permanently excluded pupil sought judicial review of the decision to exclude him. The school resisted saying that since there remained an avenue of appeal, a judicial review was inappropriate. He could still ask for a review of the decision of the independent appeal panel.
Held: Such a decision was of great importance to the child, and it was necessary that the procedure adopted should be fair. Those sitting on the discipline committee served a statutory function, and must fulfil their duties with care and independence. The availability of judicial review would serve to emphasise that duty. There would be no flood of cases because of the tests in Rowlands. Here, however, the defects in the consideration by the committee had been cured by the procedure adopted by the independent appeal panel, and the review was refused.

Judges:

Justice Mitchell

Citations:

Times 16-May-2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Hereford Magistrates’ Court (ex parte Rowlands, Ingram); Regina v Harrow Youth Court (ex parte Prussia) Admn 10-Feb-1997
The power to adjourn a trial is conferred upon Justices by statute. The divisional court will intervene where defendants have been deprived of a fair opportunity to present their case. The decision whether to grant an adjournment is not a mechanical . .
Appealed To – Regina (DR) (AM) v St George’s Catholic School and Others, Regina (A) v Kingsmead School Governors and Another CA 13-Dec-2002
The applicants appealed the refusal of judicial review of the refusals of their appeals against exclusion from school.
Held: The Act provided a full appeal procedure from the initial decision of the school’s head teacher, first to the . .

Cited by:

Appealed from – Regina (DR) (AM) v St George’s Catholic School and Others, Regina (A) v Kingsmead School Governors and Another CA 13-Dec-2002
The applicants appealed the refusal of judicial review of the refusals of their appeals against exclusion from school.
Held: The Act provided a full appeal procedure from the initial decision of the school’s head teacher, first to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Judicial Review

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.171182

Regina v Ceredigion County Council ex parte McKeown: Admn 6 Jun 1997

The claimant sought judicial review of the grant of planning permission for a wind farm. Laws J said that it was nearly impossible to conceive of a case in which leave to move for judicial review would be granted to attack a planning permission when the application was lodged more than six weeks after the planning permission had been granted.

Judges:

Laws J

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 526, [1998] 2 PLR 1, [1997] COD 463

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Finn-Kelcey v Milton Keynes Council and MK Windfarm Ltd CA 10-Oct-2008
Judicial Review must be timely
The appellant challenged the grant of permission for a wind farm on neighbouring land. His application for judicial review had been rejected for delay and on the merits.
Held: The court repeated the requirement that an application must be both . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Judicial Review

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.137471

Regina v Customs and Excise Commissioners, Ex Eurotunnel Plc and Others: QBD 23 Feb 1995

A Judicial Review application remained time barred despite leave having been given to apply out of time.

Citations:

Independent 23-Feb-1995, [1995] CLC 392

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Worcestershire Health Council (Arising From the Complaint of Kidderminster and District Community Health Council) CA 28-May-1999
The respondent had planned to downgrade a local hospital, closing the accident and emergency department. This was a renewed application for leave to seek judicial review of the plan. The health authority initially developed and had before them seven . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.86494

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.

Judges:

Goff LJ

Citations:

[1984] 1 QB 68

Statutes:

Representation of the People Act 1949 110, 115

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Elections

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.442690

Regina v Bolsover District Council, ex parte Pepper: QBD 15 Nov 2000

If a decision by a local council to sell land was not automatically a public law decision susceptible to judicial review, then neither was a decision not to sell land. Such a decision by a local authority was by nature one of private law unless there existed some circumstance which brought in a specific public law element. In making the decision, the council was not performing a public function.

Citations:

Times 15-Nov-2000

Local Government, Judicial Review

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88388