Mathialagen, R (on the application of) v Camberwell Green Justices

Article 6(1) requires a court to give reasons, but it does not require a detailed answer to every argument. The extent of the duty depends on the nature of the decision and the circumstances of the case. Where a party and its lawyers fail to attend after notice that the matter will proceed, and no substantive argument is advanced requiring explanation, a concise decision may satisfy the duty. A decision-maker may rely on a brief, responsible summary of the case where the basis of liability is clear and unchallenged. In those circumstances, granting the order without extensive reasons does not breach the right to a fair trial.

The claimant sought permission to apply for judicial review of liability orders made by Camberwell Green Justices concerning national non-domestic rates. The proceedings had been adjourned several times, and the claimant had been told that the next hearing would proceed whether or not he attended. Neither the claimant nor his lawyers attended on the listed date, and the district judge granted the orders after receiving a brief synopsis from the court clerk.

A previous application had been refused by Beatson J. On renewal, the claimant relied principally on Article 6(1), contending that the district judge had failed to consider documents placed before the court and had failed to give adequate reasons. The central issue was whether the reasons given in the circumstances satisfied the fair-trial requirement.

1. The renewed application was refused. The claimant and his lawyers had not attended the hearing, although the claimant had been informed that the matter would proceed in his absence. No argument was advanced requiring the district judge to explain in detail why a particular contention was rejected.
2. Article 6(1) requires courts to give reasons for their judgments, but the duty does not require a detailed answer to every argument. Its extent varies with the nature of the decision and must be assessed in the circumstances of the particular case, following the principle discussed in English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Limited [2002] WLR 385 and the passage from Torija v Spain [1994) 19 EHRR 553.
3. The case had been presented to the district judge as a liability to pay. The clerk gave a brief synopsis, and there was no reason to doubt that she had done so responsibly and appropriately. It would have been apparent that the orders were granted because the basis of liability had been established and nothing had been advanced to contradict it.
4. On those facts, the absence of an elaborate reasoned judgment did not breach Article 6. The renewed application therefore failed.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): On renewal, Mr Justice Leveson refused permission to apply for judicial review.
2. Earlier application: Beatson J had refused the original application on the basis that the claimant’s mistake and absence did not arguably establish unfair procedure on public law grounds.