Robinson, R (on the application of) v Hackney Education Department

Judicial review must ordinarily be brought within three months. An extension requires a good reason and must respect finality in administrative and public-law decisions. The expiry of the challenged measure, together with substantial delay, weighs strongly against extending time. An informal appeal to school governors can be fair without the formalities of litigation, including cross-examination, where the applicant has an opportunity to make representations. A school may exclude a parent from its premises where it concludes that there is a case to do so, unless the decision is perverse. The Human Rights Act 1998 was not in force when the challenged decision was made.

Kort Robinson sought permission to appeal against Turner J’s refusal of permission to bring judicial review proceedings. The proposed claim challenged a decision by the chair of governors of a primary school to ban him from entering the premises for one month in July 1997. The judicial review application was issued on 8 December 2000. The issues included whether time should be extended, whether the governors’ appeal process was fair despite the absence of cross-examination, whether the decision was perverse, and whether the costs assessment was open to challenge.

1. Delay and extension of time. Lord Justice Keene refused permission to appeal. The ordinary three-month period for judicial review is important because it promotes finality in administrative and public-law decisions. The applicant’s lack of awareness of judicial review, and the advice previously received from solicitors, did not constitute a good reason for extending time. The fact that the one-month ban had ended more than two years before the application was a further reason not to exercise the discretion.
2. Fairness. The Human Rights Act 1998 was not in force when the challenged decision was made. In any event, the court found no evidence that the governors’ appeal process was unfair. A school-governor appeal may be informal and need not observe the formalities of court proceedings. The opportunity to make representations was sufficient; the absence of cross-examination did not, without more, make the procedure unfair.
3. Merits. A school is entitled to exclude a parent from its premises where it concludes that there is a case to do so. In light of the history of events, the decision could not be characterised as perverse.
4. Costs. Turner J had carefully scrutinised the respondent’s costs schedule and substantially reduced the sum claimed. There was no basis for a successful challenge to the costs order or summary assessment.

Order: Application refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 18 June 2001, Lord Justice Keene refused the application for permission to appeal. [2001] EWCA Civ 1014
2. Queen’s Bench Division: Turner J refused permission to bring judicial review proceedings challenging the 1997 school-access ban and awarded costs against the applicant.