Barron, R (on the application of) v Surrey County Council

In representative public-law proceedings, a preliminary issue about joining additional claimants may warrant a full appeal where one person brings proceedings for herself and others affected by the same issue. The Court of Appeal may direct a three-judge hearing, preferably including judges with judicial-review experience, where authoritative guidance would assist. The court also identified a general case-management concern where one claimant has costs protection while other interested persons have no financial exposure and may disengage if the original claim falls away. The joinder issue was not decided at this preliminary hearing.

The matter came before the Court of Appeal on appeal from the Administrative Court, before Mr Justice Stanley Burnton. The appeal concerned a preliminary issue in public-law proceedings: whether other persons involved in the same issue could be joined as claimants where one person had brought the claim on behalf of herself and others. The respondent was absent and unrepresented. The court considered that the issue warranted a full appeal and gave directions for its hearing.

The court was constituted by Lord Justice Brooke and Lord Justice Mance. The supplied judgment records reasons from Brooke LJ only; no separate judgment is provided.

1. The court treated access to the Court of Appeal in representative public-law proceedings as an important issue requiring fuller consideration. The immediate question was whether persons involved in the same issue could be joined as claimants. That question was not determined at this hearing.
2. The court directed that the matter be heard on a full appeal before a three-judge court, preferably including two judges with judicial-review experience. Schiemann LJ was to be excluded because he had refused permission. The court requested an early listing because of the delay already incurred.
3. Brooke LJ identified a broader case-management concern about arrangements in which a single individual is selected to bring public-law proceedings, usually with costs protection, while a wider group claims an interest but bears no financial exposure. If the named claimant’s case falls away, the others may seek to avoid further proceedings or ancillary litigation.
4. Those observations were general guidance rather than a final determination of the substantive issue or of the funding arrangements in this case. The parties were also invited to consider whether further satellite litigation was necessary.

Directions were therefore given for a full appeal; the joinder issue remained unresolved.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 18 January 2002, the court directed a full appeal before a three-judge court and did not determine the preliminary joinder issue.
• Administrative Court: The appeal was from proceedings before Mr Justice Stanley Burnton. The citation of the decision under appeal is not stated in the judgment.