R v Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal, Ex p Shaw

An inferior statutory tribunal is subject to the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction by certiorari. Its decision may be quashed where an error of law appears on the face of the record, even though the tribunal acted within its jurisdiction.

The record ordinarily includes the document initiating the proceedings, any pleadings and the adjudication. It excludes evidence and reasons unless the tribunal incorporates them. If incorporated reasons disclose an error of law, the resulting speaking order may be quashed. The court exercises supervision rather than an appeal: it removes the unlawful decision but does not substitute its own determination.

Mr Shaw lost his office with a hospital board because of the enactment of the National Health Service Act 1946. He claimed compensation under Regulation 10 of the National Health Service (Transfer of Officers and Compensation) Regulations 1948. The compensating authority awarded less than he claimed, and the Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal upheld that decision.

The Divisional Court granted certiorari and quashed the tribunal’s decision for error of law on its face. The tribunal appealed. It contended that certiorari did not lie for a non-jurisdictional error of law and, contrary to its position below, that no error appeared on the face of the record. The central issue was whether the supervisory jurisdiction extended to such an error by an inferior statutory tribunal.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously, with costs. Singleton, Denning and Morris LJJ agreed that certiorari lay to quash the tribunal’s decision for error of law appearing on the face of its record.

2. Per Singleton LJ, an inferior statutory tribunal which determines rights after hearing evidence and opposition is amenable to certiorari. Error of law on the face of its proceedings has long been a recognised ground for the remedy. No distinction arises for this purpose between civil and criminal proceedings. The tribunal’s decision was a speaking order and could therefore be examined for legal error.

3. Per Denning LJ, the King’s Bench exercises an inherent supervisory jurisdiction over inferior tribunals. That jurisdiction ensures both that they remain within their authority and that they observe the law while exercising it. Quashing is supervisory rather than appellate: the court does not substitute its own view but removes the unlawful determination and leaves the tribunal to decide the matter again.

4. The record must ordinarily contain the document initiating the proceedings, any pleadings and the adjudication. It need not include the evidence or reasons unless the tribunal incorporates them. Where reasons are incorporated and are legally erroneous, certiorari lies. Affidavit evidence is generally inadmissible to establish an error of law on the face of the record, although it may show that the record is incomplete. By consent, affidavits may also be treated as supplementing the record.

5. The tribunal had confined relevant service to Mr Shaw’s employment with the hospital board. Regulation 2 of the National Health Service (Transfer of Officers and Compensation) Regulations 1948 defined service more broadly. Singleton LJ therefore found legal error in the decision itself. Denning LJ also considered that the initiating claim, the compensating authority’s order and the notice of appeal properly formed part of the record and would have exposed the admitted error.

6. Singleton and Morris LJJ held that the tribunal could not withdraw on appeal its concession before the Divisional Court that the decision disclosed error. The quashing order stood. No order was made on the mandamus application or appeal because the tribunal undertook to comply. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

1. Court of Appeal: The tribunal’s appeal was dismissed unanimously with costs. The Divisional Court’s order quashing the tribunal’s decision remained in force. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

2. Divisional Court of the High Court: On 14 December 1950, the court granted certiorari and quashed the tribunal’s decision for error of law appearing on its face.

3. Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal: The tribunal upheld the compensating authority’s calculation of compensation.