Tilly's Application For Judicial Review

Judicial review is not a vehicle for resolving a claimant’s disagreement with the factual accuracy of information supplied by a regulatory agency. A challenge framed as a refusal to provide information must identify an arguable public-law error in the decision under review. It cannot demand information simply because the claimant will accept no other account. Grounds based on health-protection obligations, planning controls or the right to respect for private life and the home cannot support permission to appeal where they were absent from the judicial review application and disclose no arguable basis for relief on the material before the court.

Mrs Gwendolin Rose Tilly sought permission to appeal Turner J’s refusal of permission to apply for judicial review. The proposed review challenged a letter from the Radio Communications Agency concerning transmitting equipment on the News International building. She disputed the Agency’s account, sought further information about microwave emissions and equipment use, and raised possible breaches involving EEC Council Directive 1999/519, planning controls and Article 8. An earlier paper application had also been refused. The central issue was whether the proposed challenge disclosed an arguable basis for judicial review or appeal.

1. Disposition. Lord Justice Tuckey refused permission to appeal. He concluded that there was nothing in the proposed appeal to justify permission.
2. Nature of the challenge. The application was presented as a challenge to the Agency’s refusal to provide information. Its substance was that the applicant did not accept the information already supplied. Her photographs and correspondence did not establish that transmitters had been on the roof since 1996 or that the Agency had given false information. A challenge to the accuracy of information could not be made through judicial review of the Agency’s letters. Any complaint that News International used unlicensed equipment or caused harm was not a matter that could be resolved in those proceedings.
3. Further information. The applicant also sought information about emission levels and the use of the transmitters. Although the court had not seen all the correspondence, a 1999 letter indicated that some requested information was commercially confidential and could not be disclosed without News International’s consent. The present application did not properly engage that issue and it disclosed no further scope for judicial review.
4. Additional grounds. The applicant referred to alleged breaches of EEC Council Directive 1999/519, planning controls concerning rooftop equipment and Article 8. None of those grounds had been raised in the judicial review application. On the material presented, they disclosed no basis for taking the matter further.
5. Order. Application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was refused; the application was dismissed.
• Queen’s Bench Division: Turner J refused permission to apply for judicial review.
• Earlier application: Permission had previously been refused on paper by another judge.