Key Facts
- •Mr. Rezq Allah Koro, an Iraqi refugee, sought to challenge the Crown Prosecution Service's (CPS) discontinuation of his private prosecution against Mr. Zakaria.
- •Koro's initial judicial review application was refused. He then initiated Part 7 proceedings for damages against the CPS in the Central London County Court (CLCC).
- •The CLCC made several errors, including striking out Koro's claim twice (Avent 1 and Avent 2) without hearing his applications to set aside those decisions.
- •The CLCC's administrative errors led to further appeals and applications, which were consistently rejected.
- •The CPS raised the issue of defective service, despite not following the proper procedure under CPR Part 11.
- •Koro sought judicial review of the CLCC's handling of his case, which was initially refused but appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Legal Principles
Defective service does not render proceedings non-existent; proceedings exist if properly issued, regardless of service issues.
Court of Appeal in this case
Disputing court jurisdiction requires following CPR Part 11 procedure; this includes filing an acknowledgment of service and making an application within 14 days.
CPR Part 11, Hoddinott v Persimmon Homes (Wessex) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1203, Caine v Advertiser and Times Ltd and Ors [2019] EWHC 39 (QB)
A party is entitled to an oral hearing unless exceptional reasons exist, especially when challenging orders made without notice.
ECHR Article 6, Göç v Turkey, Labrouche v Frey and Ors [2012] 1 WLR 3160, Pontanina v Pontanin [2024] UKSC 3
An appeal lies against a court's decision, even if not recorded as a sealed order; appeals can be against directions or determinations.
Anwer v Central Bridging Loans Ltd [2022] 1 WLR 4917
Unlawful acts or decisions have legal effect unless and until quashed by a court; they are not automatically void.
R (Majera) v SSHD [2022] AC 461
Judicial review may be granted in exceptional circumstances involving pre-Anisminic jurisdictional error or procedural irregularities denying a fair hearing.
R (Sivasubramaniam) v Wandsworth County Court [2004] 1 WLR 475
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal granted permission to appeal the Deputy Judge's decision and allowed the appeal.
The Deputy Judge made a fundamental error by misunderstanding HHJ Baucher's decision regarding the extension of time. The Court of Appeal found that Koro had been denied a fair hearing due to the CLCC's numerous errors and the CPS's procedural irregularities.
Avent 2 and all subsequent decisions, including HHJ Baucher's judgment, were declared legally ineffective.
Avent 2 was ineffective because it sought to strike out a claim already struck out. The subsequent actions stemmed from this initial error.
The Court of Appeal ordered that Koro's March 3, 2021 application to set aside Avent 1 be heard.
This is to rectify the CLCC's failure to provide a hearing for this application.