B, R (on the application of) v Camden & Anor

A renewed application for permission to seek judicial review may be dismissed where the claim has become wholly academic because the relevant services were provided before the tribunal’s decision. A possible claim for damages does not necessarily justify keeping the judicial review alive. Where the alleged complaint concerns local authority or public administration, the claimant should first consider the alternative complaint mechanisms identified in Anufrijeva v Southwark London Borough Council [2004] 2 WLR 603.

The claimant sought permission to apply for judicial review concerning the assessment and provision of mental health services relevant to a Mental Health Review Tribunal decision dated 26 April 2004. Permission had previously been refused on the papers by Mitting J on 24 June 2004, and the matter had also been considered by Sullivan J. By the hearing of the renewed application, all assessed services had been provided and made available before the tribunal’s decision. The claimant suggested that the services might have been provided earlier, potentially giving rise to a damages claim. The central issues were whether the claim remained justiciable and whether that possible damages claim justified an adjournment or continuation of the application.

1. The renewed application was dismissed. The claim was wholly academic because all assessed services had been provided and made available before the Mental Health Review Tribunal reached its decision.
2. The possibility that the services might have been provided earlier, and that this might support a claim for damages, did not justify keeping the judicial review proceedings alive. The court treated the damages point as insufficient to prevent final disposal of the application.
3. Applying the guidance identified in Anufrijeva v Southwark London Borough Council [2004] 2 WLR 603, at page 635, paragraph 81(iii), the court noted the need, before permission to apply for judicial review is granted, for complaints of this kind to be made to the Parliamentary Commissioner or the local government ombudsman. That had not occurred.
4. An adjournment was refused. The matter had been under consideration since 7 April 2004, had been properly considered on the papers, and had been resolved. The court concluded that there was only one proper course: dismissal of the application. If a remedy existed, it lay elsewhere.

This was a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review. Mitting J had refused permission on the papers on 24 June 2004. The judgment also records that Sullivan J had considered the case on 7 April 2004.