Gorlov, R (on the application of) v Institute Of Chartered Accountants In England & Wales, Reviewer Of Complaints

Permission for judicial review may properly be refused where the alleged defects are substantively trivial and any reconsideration would inevitably produce the same result. Public interest litigation can proceed in an appropriate case, but a general assertion of public importance is insufficient without a systemic failure or an issue of wider significance in the relevant process. The court may therefore decline permission where the challenge would serve no practical or legally meaningful purpose.

Peter Gorlov sought judicial review of decisions concerning his complaint against Mr Gay, an officer of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. The Reviewer of Complaints had found no prima facie disciplinary case and declined to reconsider that decision. Stanley Burnton J refused permission, considering the complaints largely administrative and trivial and the result of any reconsideration inevitable. The Court of Appeal heard a renewed application for permission. The proposed grounds concerned the Reviewer’s alleged adoption of a merits-appeal role, the test for apparent bias, and the asserted public interest in pursuing the claim.

Lord Justice Laws refused the renewed application for permission to appeal. He indicated that delay would not be held against the applicant, so the question was the potential merit of the challenge.

1. The court agreed with Stanley Burnton J that, if the matter were remitted for reconsideration, the result would be inevitable. The allegations against Mr Gay were largely administrative matters, such as errors in correspondence, delay and matters connected with the proper working of his office. They disclosed no sensible substantive complaint warranting judicial review proceedings.
2. The applicant relied on paragraph 17(5) of the relevant disciplinary byelaw, arguing that the Reviewer should have remitted the complaint where there was reason to suspect lack of independence and prejudice to the committee’s consideration. He also argued that the Reviewer had treated his task as a merits appeal and had applied an actual-bias test rather than the test of apparent bias. Those arguments did not justify permission in this case because the substantive outcome would remain unchanged.
3. The court accepted that some cases may properly be litigated solely in the public interest. This was not such a case. There was no indication of systemic failure or of a general issue important to the relevant disciplinary process.

Order: application for permission to appeal refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On 9 July 2002, the renewed application for permission to appeal was refused: [2002] EWCA Civ 1191.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court — Stanley Burnton J refused permission on 24 April 2002 to bring judicial review proceedings concerning the Reviewer of Complaints’ decision.