The Queen on the Application of Martins v Edmonton County Court

Judicial review of a county court order is subject to a very limited jurisdiction. It may be available where the county court acted without jurisdiction or, subject to the court’s reservations, where the claimant was denied a fair hearing. Complaints about bias, failure to give reasons, procedural defaults or the merits ordinarily belong in an appeal. Where an amended order is made under the slip rule without notice, judicial review is generally inappropriate if the claimant can return to the county court and seek a rehearing or review.

The applicant sought permission to appeal from an order of Burton J dated 29 July 2002. Burton J had refused permission to bring judicial review proceedings concerning an Edmonton County Court order dated 25 October 2001, which dismissed the applicant’s claim for damages for false imprisonment and awarded damages on a counterclaim.

The dispute concerned an additional order, drawn several months later, which included costs provisions and other terms. The order had apparently been corrected under the slip rule without notice to the applicant. Burton J concluded that the applicant could apply to the county court for a rehearing of that issue. The central questions were whether the Administrative Court could intervene and whether the later order disclosed procedural unfairness warranting judicial review.

1. Permission refused. The appeal had no realistic prospect of success. The Administrative Court’s jurisdiction to review a county court order was very limited.
2. The governing approach, following The Queen on the Application of Kevin Mahon v Taunton County Court, was that judicial review could be available where the county court acted without jurisdiction or, possibly, where the claimant did not receive a fair hearing. There was no suggestion that the deputy district judge lacked jurisdiction.
3. The applicant’s complaints that he had been prevented from cross-examining witnesses, that no reasons had been given, and that the respondent had failed to comply with procedural requirements were matters capable of being raised on an ordinary appeal. Judicial review was not a substitute for that appellate process.
4. Any unfairness arising from the second order was limited to its having been issued under the slip rule without notice. The applicant could return to the county court and ask it to review the amendment and hear his submissions. That available remedy meant that the Administrative Court had no proper basis for intervention.
5. The allegation of conspiracy to produce a false order could likewise be addressed by an application to the county court. The coincidence between the judge’s notes and the respondent solicitors’ notes weakened the prospect of success, although that was not the decisive jurisdictional point.
6. The applicant’s complaints about interlocutory orders made in 2000 were raised too late. No order for costs was made.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal from Burton J’s order dated 29 July 2002 was refused. No order for costs.
• High Court, Administrative Court: Burton J refused permission to bring judicial review proceedings concerning the Edmonton County Court order.
• Edmonton County Court: On 25 October 2001, the deputy district judge dismissed the claim and entered judgment for the defendant on the counterclaim, with a later order containing further costs provisions.