Uruakpa, R (on the application of) v British Council

Where a body’s amenability to judicial review is uncertain, the court may refuse permission without deciding that issue if the challenged decision would plainly withstand review. A decision reached after careful consideration, without irrelevant considerations, and explained in balanced, moderate and well-reasoned terms affords no realistic basis for a successful challenge. Unsupported allegations of bad faith, a demonstrably untrue complaint about representation, and an unmeritorious Article 6 complaint do not create an arguable ground. The court may therefore dismiss the application at the permission stage.

Dr Uruakpa and Dr Uloma Uruakpa sought permission to appeal against Lightman J’s refusal on 18 March 2002 of permission to seek judicial review. The proposed claim challenged the British Council’s withdrawal of its sponsorship of Dr Uruakpa, which was relevant to his ability to obtain limited medical registration without taking the PLAB test.

The issues identified below were whether the British Council’s decision was amenable to judicial review, whether the proceedings had been brought promptly, and whether the decision was lawful. The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the proposed challenge had any realistic prospect of success.

Application dismissed; no order for costs. Lord Justice Laws held that it was unnecessary to reach a final view on whether the British Council was, in principle, amenable to judicial review.

1. The British Council’s decision would survive a judicial review challenge in any event. Its reasons letter showed careful consideration of the matter, took no irrelevant considerations into account, and was balanced, moderate and well reasoned.
2. Those features established that the decision was fair and reasonable. There was therefore no realistic prospect that a challenge to the basis of the decision could succeed. That conclusion was sufficient to dispose of the application for permission to appeal from the refusal of judicial review permission.
3. The applicant’s allegations of bad faith were abusive. The complaint that he had been denied representation was plainly contradicted by the documents. The Article 6 complaint had no substance.
4. The proposed judicial review claim was consequently wholly unmeritorious. The court dismissed the application without determining the wider question of amenability.

• High Court, Administrative Court: Lightman J refused permission to seek judicial review on 18 March 2002, holding against the applicants on amenability, promptness and the lawfulness of the British Council’s decision.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lord Justice Laws dismissed the application for permission to appeal and made no order for costs.