Dragutin Popovic, R (on the application of) v Ealing Magistrates Court & Ors
[2023] EWHC 1875 (Admin)
Bryce, R (on the application of) v The Ministry of Justice
12 September 2023
[2023] EWHC 2778 (Admin)
High Court
Someone lost a court case and appealed. The appeal court didn't fully overturn it. The person then tried to get a higher court involved. The higher court said they rarely get involved in already decided cases and the appeal wasn't strong enough anyway. They also said the person waited too long to complain.
Key Facts
- •Renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review following refusal on the papers by a Deputy Judge.
- •Claimant brought proceedings against Trinity Hall Association and its Secretary, Dr David Billett.
- •Claim dismissed in County Court; claimant appealed, challenging three aspects of the decision.
- •Permission to appeal granted on one ground ('Ground 16') by HHJ Walden-Smith; other grounds deemed 'totally without merit'.
- •Claimant sought judicial review of HHJ Walden-Smith's decision, alleging a defect of justice and lack of jurisdiction.
- •Lang J ordered HHJ Walden-Smith to clarify whether she considered the claimant's amended grounds of appeal.
- •HHJ Walden-Smith's note explained she considered all grounds, both original and amended.
- •Deputy Judge considered the jurisdiction of the court to review a County Court decision not subject to further appeal, referencing relevant case law (R (Sivasubramaniam) v Wandsworth County Court, R (Watkins) v Newcastle upon Tyne County Court, R (Oluwole Ogunbiyi) v Southend County Court, R (Mahon) v Taunton County Court, Gregory v Turner, R (Strickson) v Preston County Court, R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal).
- •Claimant argued HHJ Walden-Smith mistakenly considered the original grounds instead of the amended ones.
- •HHJ Walden-Smith maintained she considered all grounds to ensure finality.
- •Claimant also argued HHJ Walden-Smith lacked jurisdiction to order no oral reconsideration of the application for permission.
Legal Principles
Highly attenuated review jurisdiction in judicial review of County Court decisions where appeal is barred.
R (Sivasubramaniam) v Wandsworth County Court [2003] 1 WLR 475 (CA)
Exceptional circumstances required for judicial review of unappealable County Court decisions; must demonstrate 'frustration or corruption of the very judicial process'.
R (Strickson) v Preston County Court [2007] EWCA Civ 1132
Civil Procedure Rules Part 52.4 governing determination of applications for permission to appeal, including the power to exclude oral reconsideration.
CPR Part 52.4
Outcomes
Permission for judicial review refused.
Ground 1 (failure to consider amended grounds) not made out; Judge's note showed consideration of all grounds. Ground 2 (lack of jurisdiction to order no oral reconsideration) arguable but not sufficient to grant permission given the grounds were deemed 'totally without merit'. Application also not prompt.
Similar Cases
MD Ayaz Karim, R (on the application of) v Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
[2024] EWHC 1368 (Admin)
EB Pension Fund & Ors v Nicholas Froggatt
[2024] EWHC 2721 (Ch)
XYM, R (on the application of) v Kingston Family Court & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2372 (Admin)
Catherine Deborah Alexander v Legal Ombudsman
[2024] EWHC 886 (Admin)