The Queen on the application of Valerie Barratt & Ors v Somerset County Council

A judicial review permission application may properly be refused as academic where the challenged writ has been executed, the applicants have left the land, and no practical relief remains. Courts should be slow to determine important public-law questions in proceedings from which no practical result can follow, particularly where the case is unsuitable for resolving those questions and public funds would bear the cost. A local authority is not at public-law fault for acting on incomplete information about occupants where it sought relevant information from their representatives and they declined to provide it. A writ of restitution forms part of the original possession proceedings and may attract different considerations from an original possession claim.

The applicants were travellers occupying land owned by Somerset County Council. The Council had obtained a possession order under Rule 24 of the then County Court Rules and later sought a writ of restitution after the occupants changed. The application to review the possession order had been withdrawn.

The writ was issued by a district judge. No application was made to oppose or set it aside until the day before execution. Scott Baker J refused permission to apply for judicial review, and Dyson LJ refused the application on paper. The applicants renewed the application orally in the Court of Appeal. By then the writ had been executed and the applicants had left the site. The central issues were whether the proceedings were academic and whether the Council had acted unlawfully in relying on incomplete information about the occupants.

Application refused.

1. Academic proceedings. The writ of restitution had been executed and the applicants had left the site. Any reoccupation would be as trespassers subject to the writ. The only possible relief would have been a declaration that the writ should not have been sought, together with restrictions on further action by the Council. No practical result could properly follow from continuing the proceedings, so the application was academic.
2. Public-law challenge. The complaint that the Council was imperfectly informed about the occupants was unmeritorious. The Council had sought relevant information from those representing the travellers, but they had declined to provide it. In those circumstances the Council could not be criticised, and had not acted unlawfully in public law, by seeking or executing the writ.
3. Nature of the remedy. The judge noted that, although unusual, a writ of restitution is a remedy in the course of the original possession proceedings. Its appropriateness therefore need not be assessed in precisely the same way as an original application for possession, even though public-law considerations remain relevant.
4. General guidance. The Court declined to determine broader questions concerning local authorities and travellers in an academic case. Important public-law issues should not ordinarily be resolved where no practical result follows, particularly where the proposed inquiry would impose costs on a public authority and its community charge payers.

The application was refused. The claimants’ costs were to be assessed under the Community Legal Services Fund.

• County Court: A possession order was obtained under Rule 24 of the then County Court Rules. The review application was withdrawn, and a district judge later issued a writ of restitution. Davis J imposed a stay pending the subsequent applications.
• High Court, Administrative Court: Scott Baker J refused permission to move for judicial review.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Dyson LJ refused the application on paper. The renewed oral application before Lord Justice Buxton was refused because the proceedings were academic and the public-law challenge was unmeritorious.