Tilly, R (on the application of) v Government Of United Kingdom

Judicial review is directed to a specific decision of a public authority. The court examines legality and the manner of decision-making, rather than the merits of the underlying dispute or a general allegation of governmental wrongdoing. A claimant must identify the decision and authority said to have acted unlawfully. Permission cannot be used to reopen a challenge to the same decision after permission has been refused. Judicial review is also unsuitable for investigating disputed facts or an alleged political explanation where no reviewable government decision has been identified.

Mrs Tilly sought permission to appeal against Collins J’s refusal on 5 September 2001 of permission to bring judicial review proceedings against the Government of the United Kingdom. The underlying complaint concerned Tower Hamlets Council’s decision to grant News International planning permission for satellite dishes and other equipment on its building in Wapping.

She alleged that the Government knew of the installation, failed to act, and may have allowed it to continue for political reasons. She had previously been refused permission to challenge related decisions concerning enforcement action, the Radio Communications Agency’s response to her requests for information, and the Tower Hamlets planning permission. The central issue was whether the proposed proceedings were an appropriate use of judicial review and whether permission to appeal should be granted.

Lady Justice Hale dismissed the application for permission to appeal.

1. Nature of judicial review. Judicial review brings before the court a particular decision of a public authority. The court reviews whether the decision was properly made and complied with the law. It does not investigate the merits of the decision or determine an underlying factual dispute.
2. Need for a defined challenge. The claimant must identify clearly what decision is challenged and against whom the challenge is brought. The proposed case against the Government was framed as an inference from various circumstances surrounding the installation. The court could not determine whether those circumstances disclosed a cause of action, but held that judicial review was not the appropriate means of pursuing that allegation.
3. Repeated challenge to the planning decision. The decision Mrs Tilly sought in substance to challenge was Tower Hamlets Council’s grant of planning permission. Permission to challenge that decision had already been refused. The present application could not provide a second opportunity to litigate the same challenge by redirecting it against the Government.
4. Disposition. The application for permission to appeal was dismissed. There was no right of appeal to the House of Lords. The application to take the matter further was refused, and a transcript was ordered to be provided to Mrs Tilly at public expense.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 17 December 2001, Lady Justice Hale dismissed the application for permission to appeal. The judgment is reported at [2001] EWCA Civ 2029.
2. High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: On 5 September 2001, Mr Justice Collins refused permission to bring judicial review proceedings against the Government of the United Kingdom.
3. Earlier proceedings: The judgment records earlier refusals of permission concerning enforcement action by the local planning authority, information sought from the Radio Communications Agency, and the Tower Hamlets planning permission itself.