Clarke, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Where judicial review raises public law issues which materially overlap with related private law claims, the court should consider whether consistent and authoritative determination requires the claims to be managed or heard together. The existence of overlapping factual and expert issues does not justify transferring or removing a properly arguable public law claim without further consideration. Case management may appropriately include notification of another court and arrangements for the same judge to hear related proceedings. Costs may be apportioned broadly where an adjournment results from a combination of changed circumstances, partial success by both parties and preparation retaining some utility.

The claimant brought judicial review proceedings concerning the treatment provided to remand prisoners undergoing detoxification from heroin addiction, including the alleged failure to continue methadone treatment. Permission had been granted by Richards J. The defendant sought, in substance, to transfer the matter to the County Court so that it could be dealt with alongside related private law negligence proceedings in Leeds, described as a class action. The court considered whether the public and private law issues should be heard together, whether the proceedings should be transferred, and how the matter should proceed.

1. The court declined simply to transfer the judicial review claim to the County Court. There were discrete and arguable public law issues which appropriately required determination in the Administrative Court.
2. The private law claims involved overlapping expert and factual issues concerning the adequacy of alternative detoxification treatment and the alleged failure to prescribe methadone in prison. Resolution of those issues would assist determination of the public law claim and related claims.
3. Because the issue was important to current and potential claimants, it was highly desirable, if practicable, that the public and private law issues be determined by the same judge in the same or consolidated proceedings, or at least managed and heard by the same judge. The court therefore proposed notifying HHJ Grenfell, the Leeds County Court and the Administrative Court, while leaving the precise venue open. If the proposed arrangements proved impracticable, the claim would be relisted for directions.
4. The defendant was ordered to pay 50 per cent of the claimant's costs of the hearing. The court adopted a broad assessment, taking account of the lateness of the defendant's application, the fact that neither party had obtained everything sought, the changed urgency of the claimant's position, and the utility of part of the preparation for the future hearing.