Bandegani, R (on the application of) v Chester County Court

Judicial review is not the appropriate means of challenging orders made by a county court acting within its jurisdiction where Parliament has provided a satisfactory appeal route to the High Court. That remains so where the applicant has unsuccessfully used that route, or has failed to appeal an order when the opportunity existed. An Administrative Court claim cannot circumvent the ordinary appellate process. The Court of Appeal may refuse permission where the jurisdictional objection is clear and the proposed challenge has no realistic prospect of success.

The applicant sought permission to appeal against orders of Sir Oliver Popplewell in the Administrative Court. Those orders refused reinstatement of an application for permission to seek judicial review of orders made by the Chester County Court in proceedings concerning his former tenancy.

The county court had dismissed several claims as having no real chance of success, restricted further proceedings without permission, and provided an appellate route to the High Court. The applicant had unsuccessfully sought permission to appeal some matters and had not appealed another order. Collins J later refused permission to apply for judicial review. The central issue was whether judicial review could be used to challenge the county court orders despite the available appellate process.

1. Permission refused. Sir Oliver Popplewell was correct to refuse reinstatement and to conclude that there was no prospect of success on the merits.
2. The county court had acted with full jurisdiction in proceedings concerning the tenancy. Parliament had entrusted the policing of landlord and tenant disputes to the county court, and the orders were susceptible to appeal to the High Court.
3. Where a satisfactory right of appeal exists against a county court order, the proper method of challenge is an appeal, not judicial review in the Administrative Court. Judicial review cannot be used to circumvent or revive an exhausted appellate route.
4. The applicant had either pursued permission to appeal unsuccessfully or had failed to seek permission to appeal the relevant restriction on further proceedings. If an extension of time was sought, the proper route remained an application within the appellate process before a High Court judge.
5. The authorities relied upon concerning the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court were materially different and did not affect the clear jurisdictional position in this case. The application for permission to appeal was refused. There was no order for costs.

• Administrative Court: Collins J refused permission to apply for judicial review on 23 November 2001. The matter was restored before Sir Oliver Popplewell, who refused reinstatement on 15 March 2002.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal against those orders was refused.