Zagato Lancia Borkwood Engineering Ltd v Parking Appeals Adjudicator

Permission to appeal should be refused where the proposed challenge has no realistic prospect of showing that an adjudicator acted beyond jurisdiction. An adjudicator may refuse further evidence on review where the evidence could and should have been produced at the original hearing, the applicant was not misled, and no compelling reason justifies reopening factual matters. A claimant must establish standing; a business interest and an indemnity arrangement with the directly affected person will not ordinarily suffice. Judicial review must also be brought promptly. Delay caused by awaiting transcripts is insufficient where those transcripts were unnecessary to determine the application.

The Divisional Court refused permission for judicial review of decisions concerning a penalty charge imposed after a car was said to have waited in a restricted street: [2002] EWHC 619 (Admin). The vehicle owner and registered keeper was Mr Glaser. Zagato Lancia and Borkwood Engineering sought to pursue the challenge, and Borkwood was later added as a claimant. On review, an adjudicator refused to admit an employee’s statement intended to support an exemption under the City of Westminster (Waiting and Loading Restriction) Order 1976. The application for permission to appeal was renewed after refusal on paper. The central issues were the susceptibility of the adjudicator’s decision to judicial review, the applicants’ standing, and the promptness of the claim.

Lord Justice Schiemann, sitting alone, refused permission to appeal and made no order as to costs.

1. Merits first. The court considered that the first question was whether the underlying challenge had any merit. If it did not, the additional grounds concerning the conduct of the proceedings in the Divisional Court did not arise.
2. Review and further evidence. The only substantially live merits issue concerned the alleged exemption in paragraph 10(1)(d) of the City of Westminster (Waiting and Loading Restriction) Order 1976. The reviewing adjudicator had refused an employee’s statement because the appellant had had the opportunity, and should have anticipated the need, to produce the evidence at the original hearing. The appellant had not been misled by the council’s correspondence. Since factual findings were generally final on review, further evidence required a compelling reason. Lord Justice Schiemann considered the prospects of establishing that this decision was beyond the adjudicator’s jurisdiction to be negligible.
3. Standing. Mr Glaser, as owner and registered keeper, was the person directly affected and was the proper person to bring the challenge. Zagato Lancia had no demonstrated locus. Borkwood’s business interest and possible indemnity of Mr Glaser did not, without more, probably confer standing; in any event, Borkwood was not an original applicant.
4. Promptness. The judicial review application was issued more than three months after the January 2001 review decision. Although the transcripts had been delayed, they were unnecessary for deciding the application. That delay therefore supplied a further reason for refusing permission.

The application was refused. There was no order for costs.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — renewed application for permission to appeal refused on 4 October 2002; no order for costs.
2. Divisional Court of the High Court — refused permission for judicial review on 6 February 2002: [2002] EWHC 619 (Admin). Borkwood Engineering was added as a second claimant and costs directions were made.