Adoko v The Law Society

A challenge to a public authority’s allegedly unlawful decision is ordinarily a matter for judicial review where the court must first determine whether the decision was unlawful. Recasting the claim as one for damages alone does not alter its public-law character. Under Human Rights Act 1998, section 8, damages may be available for an unlawful act by a public authority, but judicial review proceedings may include damages only alongside the application for review. A second appeal requires an important point of principle or practice, or another compelling reason.

The applicant challenged the Law Society’s refusal to consider his reapplication for admission as a solicitor. A Master struck out the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(b), holding that the complaint was properly pursued by judicial review. His Honour Judge Sleeman dismissed the appeal and held that only public-law issues arose.

On second appeal, the applicant argued that he could pursue a private-law claim for damages based on alleged breaches of human rights. The central issue was whether changing the form of relief could permit an ordinary civil claim concerning the Law Society’s public decision.

1. Application refused. The proposed second appeal did not raise an important point of principle or practice and disclosed no other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it under CPR 52.1(3).
2. The applicant’s narrow complaint concerned the Law Society’s alleged refusal to consider a reapplication for admission. It challenged the legality of a public authority’s decision, including compliance with the applicable regulatory procedure and alleged human-rights obligations. There was no conceivable contractual or tortious cause of action.
3. The claim remained a public-law challenge even though the applicant sought damages and said that he would abandon his claim for a declaration. The court would first have to determine whether the decision was unlawful. That issue was pre-eminently suitable for judicial review.
4. Section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 permits such relief as is just and appropriate for an unlawful act of a public authority, including damages where the court has power to award them. CPR 54.3(2) permits a claim for damages to accompany judicial review but prevents a claim seeking damages alone. Section 31(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 provides the relevant route for damages in judicial review proceedings.
5. Whether the applicant had complied with the review procedure under regulations 18 and 19 was immaterial to the disposal of the second appeal. The decisive point was the procedural nature of the challenge and the absence of any qualifying ground for permission.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Application for permission to bring a second appeal refused.
• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division: His Honour Judge Sleeman dismissed the appeal on 29 October 2001.
• Master Rose: Claim struck out on 30 August 2001 under CPR 3.4(2)(b) as an abuse of process or likely to obstruct the just disposal of proceedings.