Uttlesford District Council v Barnes

Once an appeal by way of case stated has been completed, any challenge to the accuracy or substance of the case stated must be treated as exhausted. Judicial review cannot later be used as a collateral route to reopen those matters, even where the applicant alleges factual errors, an incorrect legal question, or procedural unfairness. The position is particularly clear where the case stated has already been examined by judges and the applicant was represented at the appeal. A renewed application for permission should therefore be refused where it seeks a further review of concluded case-stated proceedings rather than a genuinely available public-law remedy.

This was a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review. The proposed challenge concerned a letter from the Essex Magistrates Court declining to take further action on complaints about the accuracy of a case stated. The case stated arose from an appeal concerning distress levied for unpaid council tax. The Council had succeeded before Laws J on 4 July 1997, and permission to appeal had later been refused. Hooper J refused permission on paper, and Scott Baker J refused the renewed application. The applicant alleged factual inaccuracies, an incorrect legal question, failure to consider representations, breach of natural justice and breach of human rights. The central issue was whether judicial review could be used after completion of the case-stated appeal to reopen the substance of the case stated.

Application refused. Lord Justice Dyson held that the proposed judicial review was an attempt to reopen concluded case-stated proceedings.

1. Once the appeal by way of case stated had been completed, complaints about the accuracy of the case stated were exhausted. The appeal was finally concluded when Laws J gave judgment and later refused permission to appeal.
2. It was too late to challenge the substance of the case stated by judicial review. Judicial review could not provide a further route for reconsidering matters that belonged to the completed case-stated appeal.
3. The conclusion was reinforced by the procedural history. Sedley J had considered the accuracy of the case stated and identified an amendment. Jowitt J had subsequently found that substantial amendment was required and proposed a redraft. The final case stated was approved by the magistrates, and the applicant was represented when the appeal came before Laws J.
4. The later refusal by the magistrates to comment further did not revive the concluded proceedings or create a basis for a third examination of the case stated. The lower courts had correctly refused permission, and Dyson LJ saw no answer to their reasoning.

The renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review was refused. A copy of the transcript was supplied to the applicant at public expense.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lord Justice Dyson refused the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review: [2001] EWCA Civ 1120.
• High Court, Administrative Court: Hooper J refused the original application on paper. Scott Baker J refused the renewed application. Laws J had determined the Council’s appeal by way of case stated in the Council’s favour.