R (on the application of Kate Thomas) v Judicial Appointments Commission
[2024] EWCA Civ 665
Radoslaw Kaleta, R (on the application of) v The Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman
6 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 1038 (Admin)
High Court
Someone complained about how their employment case was handled. An ombudsman looked into the complaint process, not the case itself. A judge decided the complaint about the *process* was fair, so the original complaint couldn't be fully reviewed by the courts.
Key Facts
- •Radoslaw Kaleta applied for permission to judicially review the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman's (Ombudsman) decision of 5 September 2022.
- •The Ombudsman's decision refused a full investigation into Kaleta's complaint about the handling of his employment tribunal case.
- •Kaleta complained about delays and alleged misconduct by an Employment Judge and a Regional Employment Judge.
- •The Ombudsman's decision was based on section 110 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which limits the Ombudsman's power to review the merits of decisions, focusing instead on the process.
- •Kaleta alleged pre-determination, lack of balanced approach, and failure to consider all material factors by the Ombudsman.
Legal Principles
Judicial review is a review of the lawfulness, rationality, and process behind a decision, not an appeal.
Mr Justice Griffiths' judgment
The Ombudsman's remit, under section 110 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, is limited to reviewing the process of handling complaints, not the merits of the decisions themselves.
Constitutional Reform Act 2005, section 110
To succeed in a judicial review, a claimant must demonstrate that the decision was irrational or unlawful, not simply wrong.
Mr Justice Griffiths' judgment
Outcomes
Permission for judicial review was refused.
The judge found that the claimant had not demonstrated arguable grounds that the Ombudsman's decision was irrational or unlawful. The claimant failed to clearly distinguish between his various complaints and the Ombudsman's specific decision. The judge deemed the claimant's serious allegations against the interested party irrelevant to the Ombudsman's decision.
Similar Cases
John Alexander Melvin Hemming v Independent Office of Police Conduct
[2022] EWHC 3307 (Admin)
David Eric Platts v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 167 (GRC)
Mark Moss, R (on the application of) v The Service Complaints Ombudsman of the Armed Forces (No 3) (Remedy)
[2024] EWHC 669 (Admin)
Catherine Deborah Alexander v Legal Ombudsman
[2024] EWHC 886 (Admin)