Hassib, R (on the application of) v East London & City Mental Health NHS Trust

Permission to apply for judicial review should be refused where the claimant identifies no particular decision for review and the claim materials disclose no possible basis on which the application could succeed. General allegations of human-rights violations, unsupported criminal wrongdoing and demands for disclosure, apologies or punitive damages do not themselves establish arguable grounds. The appellate court may uphold the refusal where the lower court was plainly correct on the documents and submissions.

Dr Hassib sought permission to appeal against Jackson J’s refusal, on 12 June 2002, of permission to apply for judicial review. The proposed respondent was the East London and City Mental Health NHS Trust.

The claim arose from letters arranging psychiatric appointments at Dr Hassib’s home and from visits by Trust staff when he was absent. His claim form referred to alleged ongoing failures and broad human-rights violations, but did not identify a particular decision for review. The central issue was whether the claim disclosed any arguable grounds capable of succeeding in judicial review.

1. Extension of time. Lord Justice May granted the short extension of time required for Dr Hassib’s application for permission to appeal.
2. Judicial review grounds. The claim form did not identify any particular decision of the Trust which was to be reviewed. Its grounds consisted of general allegations of human-rights violations and criminal impersonation, together with requests for disclosure of alleged offenders, an apology and substantial punitive or exemplary damages. The written and oral material added further allegations, but did not provide a legally recognisable basis for judicial review.
3. Assessment of the lower court’s decision. On the documents and submissions before the court, there were no possible grounds on which an application for judicial review against the Trust might succeed. The letters and visits described were, in substance, attempts to arrange a routine medical appointment and did not alter that conclusion.
4. Disposition. Jackson J was entirely right to refuse permission. The application for permission to appeal was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 8 October 2002, Lord Justice May granted a short extension of time but refused permission to appeal, holding that the judicial review claim disclosed no possible grounds of success. The decision is reported at [2002] EWCA Civ 1493.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: Jackson J refused permission to apply for judicial review on 12 June 2002.