Ram, R (On the Application Of) v Parole Board

A consent order should be reopened for a supervening event only where a new event invalidates the order’s fundamental basis. The event must be a complete and reasonably unforeseeable change, rather than the development of facts known or reasonably foreseeable when the order was made. A court may suspend payment where immediate payment would assist a person unlawfully at large, while protecting sums due to publicly funded solicitors or the Legal Services Commission.

The claimant’s judicial review proceedings concerning his detention were settled by a consent order requiring payment of £20,000. After set-off, £1,000 remained outstanding. Before payment, his licence was revoked and he failed to surrender, remaining unlawfully at large.

The Secretary of State sought to set aside or vary the consent order so that payment would be made only personally at a police station. The claimant sought payment through his solicitors and applied for specific performance. The issues concerned supervening events, public-funding provisions and the court’s power to suspend enforcement.

1. The application to set aside or vary the consent order was refused. The conditions in Barder v. Barder [1988] AC 20 applied to an application to set aside a consent order. A qualifying event had to invalidate the order’s basis, occur within a relatively short time, be followed by a reasonably prompt application, and be unforeseeable when the order was made.
2. The claimant’s breach of licence, recall and failure to surrender were foreseeable and therefore did not constitute a qualifying supervening event.
3. Section 10(7) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 and regulations 18 and 20 of the Community Legal Service (Costs) Regulations 2000 governed the mechanics of receiving and applying recovered damages. They left no room for an inconsistent implied term, although they did not create the underlying liability.
4. Specific performance was unavailable because section 25 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 provided the applicable enforcement mechanism. Section 25(3), including the words “or otherwise”, gave the court power to suspend payment in whole or in part.
5. The discretion could prevent any balance from reaching the claimant personally while he remained unlawfully at large, while protecting sums due to the solicitor or Commission. The court invited submissions on an appropriate direction or declaration.