Watson v Dilmitis

Judicial review cannot provide a further appeal from a County Court decision in civil litigation. Such a challenge must use the prescribed appellate route, with permission where required. The Administrative Court cannot reconsider matters already determined by the County Court or Court of Appeal merely because the challenge is recast in human-rights terms. Permission to apply for judicial review should be refused where there is no arguable case with a realistic possibility of success. Sympathy for an applicant’s grievance does not alter that jurisdictional and procedural analysis.

Mrs Watson claimed contractual costs from Miss Dilmitis for representing her in employment tribunal proceedings. A Deputy District Judge determined the claim. Judge Brunning dismissed Miss Dilmitis’s appeal, subject only to reducing the sum payable. Lord Justice Brooke later refused permission to appeal.

Miss Dilmitis then sought judicial review of Judge Brunning’s decision. Sullivan J refused permission, and Ouseley J refused a renewed application, holding that the Administrative Court had no jurisdiction to intervene in matters concerning the County Court and Court of Appeal judgments. The present hearing concerned a further renewal of permission.

1. Disposition. The application for permission to apply for judicial review was refused.
2. Proper appellate route. A challenge to a County Court decision must be pursued by appeal through the route prescribed by the rules, including any required permission. Judicial review cannot be used as a new route of appeal to circumvent those arrangements or to relitigate matters already determined.
3. Jurisdiction. The substance of Miss Dilmitis’s complaints concerned the handling and conclusions of the County Court proceedings and the subsequent appellate decisions. Presenting those complaints in a human-rights context did not confer jurisdiction on the Administrative Court or change the appropriate procedural route.
4. Permission threshold. The relevant question was whether there was any arguable case with a realistic possibility that judicial review would be granted. The court found no realistic prospect of success. The applicant’s profound sense of grievance, and the court’s sympathy for it, could not affect that legal conclusion.
5. Wider concerns. Questions about the supervision or control of persons providing services of the kind in issue did not bear on the decision whether judicial review was arguable. The refusal therefore stood as the formal order.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In [2001] EWCA Civ 737, Lord Justice Judge refused the renewed application for permission to seek judicial review.
• High Court — Ouseley J refused a renewed application for permission. Sullivan J had earlier refused permission.
• Court of Appeal — Lord Justice Brooke refused permission to appeal from Judge Brunning’s decision.
• County Court — Judge Brunning dismissed the appeal from the Deputy District Judge, subject to reducing the amount payable from £1,415.20 to £1,360.20.