Radoslaw Kaleta, R (on the application of) v The Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman
[2024] EWHC 1038 (Admin)
R (on the application of Kate Thomas) v Judicial Appointments Commission
13 June 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 665
Court of Appeal
A judge applied for a higher position but didn't get it. She sued, saying the process was unfair and violated her privacy rights. The Court let her proceed with most of her lawsuit, but not the part about discrimination. The judge's treatment was deemed 'very unfortunate' by the Court.
Key Facts
- •District Judge Katie Thomas (appellant) applied for a Circuit Judge position but was unsuccessful.
- •She challenged the Judicial Appointments Commission's (JAC) decision via judicial review.
- •The challenge concerned the fairness of the JAC process, alleged Article 8 infringement, interpretation of Regulation 30 of the Judicial Appointment Regulations 2013/2192, and a potential Article 14 discrimination claim.
- •Swift J initially refused permission for judicial review.
- •The Court of Appeal granted limited permission to appeal, focusing on fairness, Article 8, and Regulation 30, but refused permission to amend the claim to include Article 14 discrimination.
Legal Principles
Fairness in judicial appointments process
Common law principles of fairness and procedural fairness
Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life)
European Convention on Human Rights
Interpretation of Regulation 30 of the Judicial Appointment Regulations 2013/2192
Judicial Appointment Regulations 2013/2192
Confidentiality in judicial appointments process and balancing with fairness to candidates
Section 139 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005
Article 14 ECHR (prohibition of discrimination)
European Convention on Human Rights
Outcomes
Court of Appeal granted permission to appeal on grounds of fairness, Article 8, and Regulation 30.
The Court deemed it appropriate to consider these challenges at a full Judicial Review hearing, given the importance of a fair and transparent judicial appointment process and the exceptional circumstances of the case. The Court also noted that the appellant’s treatment by the JAC was “very unfortunate indeed”.
Court of Appeal refused permission to amend the claim to include an Article 14 discrimination claim.
The Court found the discrimination claim to be highly doubtful, adding unnecessary complication without countervailing advantage, and noted the lack of analogous comparison and failure to raise the point in lower courts.