Stone's Application for Judicial Review

The terms of reference of a non-statutory ombudsman were not reviewable in judicial review as unfair. Article 6 was satisfied where the claimant could have his dispute tried by an independent tribunal in ordinary proceedings; it conferred no right to challenge the ombudsman in that court. Articles 13 and 24 had not been incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998, and Article 14 added nothing. The court had no power to direct the Government to make the ombudsman accountable or to approve Parliamentary questions. Permission to appeal was refused.

Mr Geoffrey Stone sought permission to appeal against Hooper J's refusal of permission to judicially review a decision of the Banking Ombudsman. The Ombudsman had rejected his complaint because the matters complained of were more than six years old and had already been the subject of proceedings without the bank's consent to further consideration.

On the renewed application, the Court of Appeal considered whether the Ombudsman and its terms of reference were amenable to judicial review, and whether the applicant's Convention arguments justified relief.

1. Disposition. Lord Justice Tuckey refused permission to appeal and dismissed the application. The transcript was to be provided to the applicant at public expense.
2. Amenability and the terms of reference. The court declined to determine whether the Banking Ombudsman was amenable to judicial review. That threshold issue was inappropriate for decision on a permission application where the applicant was a litigant in person and the Ombudsman was unrepresented. The court therefore assumed amenability without deciding it.
3. The judge below was clearly right that the Ombudsman was not a statutory body and that the court had no power to declare its terms of reference reviewable as unfair. The terms themselves made clear that complaints concerning matters more than six years old, or matters already the subject of proceedings without the bank's consent, could not be considered.
4. Convention arguments. Articles 13 and 24 of the European Convention on Human Rights had not been incorporated into domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 6 was satisfied because the applicant had been able to have his dispute with the bank, including his defence and counterclaim, heard in ordinary proceedings before an independent tribunal. It gave him no right to complain about the Banking Ombudsman in the Court of Appeal. Article 14 added nothing to the argument.
5. Relief sought. The court had no power under the Human Rights Act 1998 or any other legislation to direct the Government to make the Ombudsman accountable. It also had no power to approve Parliamentary questions, and should not interfere with the democratic process by expressing views about them. The proposed questions could not affect the outcome.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On the renewed application, refused permission to appeal and dismissed the application: [2001] EWCA Civ 1113.
• Queen's Bench Division: Hooper J refused permission to judicially review the Banking Ombudsman's decision.