Leakey, R (on the application of) v North Yorkshire County Council

A renewed application for judicial review may be an abuse of process where it substantially repeats an earlier refused application and no material change of circumstances is shown. Additional evidence does not justify reopening the matter if it does not address the grounds on which permission was previously refused. Permission should also be refused where the material discloses no arguable unlawfulness by a public authority, no sustainable basis for the relief sought, and allegations requiring police investigation rather than judicial review. The court is concerned with legality, not the desirability of development or the strength of public opposition.

The claimant challenged the sale for development of three areas of land in Settle and Giggleswick by North Yorkshire County Council and other public bodies. He sought orders stopping development, confirming or restoring public ownership, requiring reasons for the sales, and securing investigation of alleged corruption.

Sullivan J had previously refused permission to apply for judicial review concerning the same properties. Richards J concluded that the renewed application raised essentially the same issues, with no material change of circumstances, and was an abuse of process. He also concluded that permission should be refused on the original grounds. The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the renewed application disclosed any arguable unlawful conduct or justified reopening the earlier refusal.

Application refused. Lord Justice Dyson found no basis to doubt the conclusions of Sullivan J or Richards J.

1. The renewed application was essentially the same as the earlier application. The additional documentary material concerning ownership did not address the reasons for the earlier refusal. Those reasons included the absence of evidence that the public bodies had exceeded their powers, the absence of evidence enabling the court to assess the practicability of relief, and the fact that the principal corruption allegations were matters for the police. Richards J was therefore entitled to treat the renewed application as an abuse of process.
2. In any event, the material before the Court of Appeal disclosed no arguable case that the sales were unlawful or that the developments were unlawful. There was no sustainable basis for the extensive orders sought by the claimant.
3. The court recognised the claimant’s strong opposition to the development and the beauty of the area. Those considerations did not establish unlawfulness. Judicial review determines whether public action is lawful; it does not determine whether development is desirable or whether public opinion supports it.

The formal order was that the application for permission to apply for judicial review was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — The renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review was refused: [2001] EWCA Civ 1409.
2. Queen’s Bench Division, Richards J — Refused permission, holding that the application was essentially the same as the earlier application and was an abuse of process; he also rejected it on the merits.
3. Queen’s Bench Division, Sullivan J — On 21 January 2000, refused permission concerning the same properties, relying on the absence of evidence of excess of power, the lack of a basis for assessing practicable relief, and the police character of the corruption allegations.