Weddle v South Tyne Social Security Appeal Tribunal

Where Parliament has prescribed a route for challenging a tribunal decision, judicial review should not be used as an alternative appellate forum. The claimant must pursue the prescribed appeal, including any permission process, rather than invite the Administrative Court to reconsider the tribunal’s merits. Where the Court of Appeal has already considered and refused permission concerning the tribunal decision, a later refusal by the Administrative Court to entertain judicial review is manifestly right. Permission to appeal that refusal may therefore be refused without reopening the underlying merits.

The applicant sought permission to appeal the refusal by Mr Justice Maurice Kay of permission to apply for judicial review. The proposed judicial review challenged a decision of the South Tyne Social Security Appeal Tribunal.

Permission to appeal the tribunal decision had previously been refused by Lord Justice Robert Walker. The central issue was whether the Administrative Court was an appropriate forum for a further challenge, or whether the prescribed appellate route had to be followed.

1. Application refused. Lord Justice Schiemann refused permission to appeal.
2. The proper route for challenging a decision of the Social Security Appeal Tribunal was an appeal to the Court of Appeal. Parliament had prescribed that procedure. Judicial review was therefore not the appropriate means of seeking reconsideration of the tribunal’s decision.
3. The Court of Appeal had already considered the applicant’s proposed appeal. Lord Justice Robert Walker had refused permission, treating the grounds as having no prospect of success. The applicant could not obtain a further forum for challenging the tribunal’s decision by commencing judicial review proceedings.
4. Mr Justice Maurice Kay had correctly declined to examine the merits of the underlying complaint. His conclusion that judicial review was inappropriate, and that the matter had already been considered by the Court of Appeal, was manifestly right.
5. The underlying tribunal decision was not reopened. The operative order was that the application for permission to appeal was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 22 February 2002, Lord Justice Schiemann refused permission to appeal the refusal of permission to apply for judicial review.
• High Court: Mr Justice Maurice Kay refused permission to apply for judicial review, holding that the prescribed route was an appeal to the Court of Appeal and that the matter had already been considered there.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lord Justice Robert Walker previously refused permission to appeal the Social Security Appeal Tribunal’s decision.
• High Court: Mr Justice Turner had earlier refused permission to move for judicial review on the papers.