Kaston's Application For Judicial Review

A litigant cannot use judicial review as a second avenue of appeal to reopen issues already pursued through the ordinary appellate process. Where an appeal court refuses permission to appeal at an oral hearing, the appellate route is final under the Access to Justice Act 1999 and the relevant Practice Direction. Judicial review may sometimes be available against County Court decisions, but it must not duplicate an appeal that has reached finality. Repeating the same complaints before the Administrative Court is an abuse of process.

The claimant’s insurance claim against his insurers was dismissed by His Honour Judge Mackay after a substantial County Court trial. He alleged errors in the treatment of evidence and bias arising from the judge’s interventions. Permission to appeal was refused on paper by Penry-Davey J and, on renewal at an oral hearing, by Hunt J.

The claimant then sought judicial review of the County Court decision. Jackson J in the Administrative Court refused permission. The claimant applied in the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal that refusal, arguing that judicial review remained available despite the unsuccessful appellate route. The central issue was whether the same complaints could be reopened by judicial review after the appellate process had ended.

Application dismissed. Per Lord Justice Henry, the ordinary appellate route had ended. The judgment records section 55(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 as the authority for the proposition that an oral refusal of permission to appeal creates no further right of appeal. Rule 4.8 of the relevant Practice Direction and section 54(4) of the Act express the same finality in the terms set out in the judgment.

1. The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal is statutory, although the statute imposes no general restriction on it. The grounds of appeal had developed through case law and included error of law; factual findings against the weight of the evidence or not reasonably open to the tribunal; unreasonable exercise of discretion; new evidence; and misconduct or procedural irregularity. The latter category could, where relevant, include infringement of Article 6 of Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act.
2. Judicial review remains available in some circumstances in relation to County Court decisions as an alternative to an ordinary appeal. It is not an additional or second appeal. A litigant who has pursued complaints through the appellate route to finality cannot begin again in the Administrative Court on the same grounds.
3. The claimant’s complaints about favourable and unfavourable evidence and alleged bias were matters capable of being, and in fact were, raised on appeal. The County Court judgment had been reviewed by two High Court judges and upheld. Reopening those matters by judicial review would wholly duplicate the superior appellate process and constitute an abuse of process.

Permission to appeal Jackson J’s refusal of permission for judicial review was therefore refused, and the application was dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) dismissed the claimant’s application for permission to appeal Jackson J’s refusal of permission for judicial review.
2. Administrative Court Jackson J refused permission to apply for judicial review of the County Court decision.
3. High Court Penry-Davey J refused permission to appeal on paper; Hunt J refused permission on a renewed oral hearing.
4. County Court His Honour Judge Mackay dismissed the claimant’s insurance claim and ordered him to pay the insurers’ costs.