Hripsime Lake v Lancaster Magistrates Court & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2727 (Admin)
Kevin Charles Godin-Prior, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Transport & Anor
21 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 621 (Admin)
High Court
Someone's driving license was taken away. They tried to appeal to a higher court, but the higher court said the first court already made a fair decision and it was too late to challenge it.
Key Facts
- •Claimant's driving license revoked by DVLA on 22 April 2021 due to a possible medical condition.
- •Claimant's appeal to the magistrates' court was dismissed on 5 November 2021.
- •Claimant's application for judicial review was refused on the papers by UTJ Plimmer on 10 June 2022 due to delay, alternative remedy, and lack of arguability.
- •Claimant did not attend the hearing and was not represented.
- •The revocation was based on the Claimant's failure to respond to DVLA's requests for medical information.
- •The Claimant argued that he did not receive the initial notification letter, mislaid the warning letter, and that the DVLA was unresponsive.
- •The Claimant also challenged the information exchange between the Police and the DVLA, alleging inaccuracies and non-disclosure.
Legal Principles
Section 93 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 allows for the revocation of a driving licence due to disability or prospective disability.
Road Traffic Act 1988
Section 100 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides a statutory right of appeal to the magistrates' court.
Road Traffic Act 1988
Judicial review is an inappropriate remedy when alternative remedies are available.
Case Law (implied)
Delay in bringing a judicial review claim can be a ground for refusal.
Case Law (implied)
Outcomes
Claimant's renewed application for permission for judicial review was dismissed.
The court found that the magistrates' court had properly considered the merits of the appeal, and that there was no arguable basis for challenging the revocation decision. The court also found that the claim was brought with undue delay.
The costs order of £1800 made by UTJ Plimmer against the Claimant in favor of the Secretary of State will stand.
The court found no basis for overturning the costs order.
The Police's application for costs was refused.
The court considered that the Police's application was inapt and that there was no justification for making a second costs order.