Kumar, R (on the application of) v The Home Office

Judicial review is not an appropriate means of challenging judicial decisions in civil proceedings where the claimant has a right of appeal. Even assuming that the Administrative Court has exceptional power to regulate proceedings in the County Court or High Court, that power should not be exercised where the ordinary appellate remedy exists and the circumstances do not justify intervention. A claim seeking prerogative orders in those circumstances may be treated as a manifest abuse of the process of the court.

The claimant sought judicial review of case-management and other orders made in two civil actions. One action against the Home Office concerned a claim for damages for personal injury following the alleged retention of his passport. The other concerned claims against officers or employees of Staffordshire University Students Union.

The civil proceedings had subsequently been struck out. The claimant had rights of appeal against the relevant orders, had pursued some appellate steps, but had not appealed the final strike-out order in the second action. A previous paper application for permission to proceed with judicial review had been refused by Munby J. The renewed application concerned whether the Administrative Court should review the challenged decisions.

1. Application refused. The judicial review claim was a manifest abuse of the process of the court.
2. The claimant had a right of appeal against each of the orders which he sought to attack by prerogative orders. The existence of that appellate remedy made judicial review inappropriate.
3. Even assuming that, in exceptional circumstances, the Administrative Court possessed a power to regulate judicial or administrative proceedings in the County Court and High Court, this was plainly not an appropriate case for exercising that jurisdiction.
4. The claimant had no realistic prospect of establishing that judicial review should nevertheless be available. The civil claims had been terminated by strike-out orders, and any attempt to seek permission to appeal out of time remained a matter of considerable doubt.

Administrative Court: Munby J refused the claimant’s paper application for permission to proceed on 20 December 2003, observing that the proper remedy was appeal and that the proposed proceedings were an abuse of process.

Administrative Court: On renewal, Mr Justice Pitchford refused the application on 18 February 2004.