Cameron, R (on the application of) v Central London County Court

An appellate court may determine only an appeal or application properly before it. It has no jurisdiction, within an application for permission to appeal, to order a county court or court-service officials to answer correspondence about alleged inefficiency. Such complaints are administrative matters for the relevant court-service or ministerial channels. Permission should be refused where the decision challenged was sensible and the proposed appeal had no prospects of success.

Miss Cameron had brought employment proceedings against the governors of the Royal School, Hampstead. Those proceedings were dismissed or struck out, and she was ordered to pay costs. Her application to set aside the costs assessment and for a stay of execution was dismissed by His Honour Judge Hallgarten QC.

The County Court later adjourned an application concerning the costs assessment while Miss Cameron considered seeking permission to appeal. After correspondence with the court failed to secure a hearing date, she commenced judicial review proceedings seeking an order requiring the County Court to restore the adjourned application. Burton J refused relief on 11 May 2001 and suggested that she attend the County Court in person. The application was subsequently listed, but Judge Ryland declined to make an order, treating the earlier listing as an error.

Miss Cameron sought permission to appeal Burton J’s decision and also sought an order compelling replies to her correspondence. The central issues were the scope of the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction and whether the proposed appeal had any prospect of success.

1. Application refused. The only matter before the Court of Appeal was Miss Cameron’s application for permission to appeal Burton J’s decision. The court could determine that application, but it could not grant the separate relief she sought concerning replies to letters about alleged inefficiency.
2. The Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to compel the Central London County Court, the Court Service or other correspondents to answer administrative complaints. Complaints of maladministration were matters to be pursued administratively with the Court Service and, if necessary, the Lord Chancellor’s Department.
3. Burton J’s approach was sensible. He had expressed reservations about the jurisdiction sought but advised Miss Cameron to attend the County Court and request restoration of the adjourned application. That course resulted in the application being listed. Judge Ryland then explained that the listing had resulted from an error and that any remedy lay in an appeal against Judge Hallgarten’s order.
4. Miss Cameron’s underlying complaint concerned the costs order made in April 1999 and the dismissal of her application to set aside the assessment. She had not appealed those orders at the time and had only later attempted to appeal out of time. The proposed appeal against Burton J’s decision therefore disclosed no conceivable complaint with any prospects of success.
5. The application for permission to appeal was refused. No order was made concerning the administrative complaints.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lord Justice Dyson refused permission to appeal Burton J’s decision and declined to make an order compelling replies to correspondence.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: Burton J refused the relief sought on 11 May 2001 and advised Miss Cameron to apply directly to the County Court for restoration of the adjourned application.