Nduka, R (on the application of) v His Honour Judge Riddel

Judicial review may be available against an inferior court, including a County Court, but it is not an alternative route of appeal on the merits. It is confined to cases involving jurisdictional error or procedural unfairness. Mere disagreement with the decision, or an allegation that the decision was wrong, is insufficient.

A County Court’s case-management powers may include striking out proceedings that are an abuse of process or have no reasonable prospect of success. Where proceedings are validly struck out, the court’s consequent failure to entertain applications made within those proceedings does not, without more, constitute procedural impropriety.

The claimant sought permission to judicially review decisions made in proceedings against her landlords. A District Judge had struck out her claim as an abuse of process and as having no reasonable prospect of success. A Circuit Judge refused permission to appeal. A single judge had refused permission for judicial review, observing that the Civil Procedure Rules provided a comprehensive appeal system.

The claimant argued that judicial review remained available against inferior courts and that the District Judge had acted procedurally improperly by failing to hear two paid applications before striking out the proceedings.

1. Permission refused. The application for judicial review was unarguable.
2. Part 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules permits judicial review in appropriate circumstances against an inferior court, including a County Court. It does not, however, provide a means of circumventing the ordinary appeal arrangements.
3. Judicial review is available where the inferior tribunal has acted outside its jurisdiction or in a procedurally unfair way. Mere disagreement with the substance of a decision is insufficient. The District Judge’s strike-out order disclosed no error of law, procedural impropriety or irrationality in the Wednesbury sense.
4. The District Judge acted within the wide case-management powers conferred by the Civil Procedure Rules when striking out claims under the Protection Against Eviction Act and concerning alleged theft of property as an abuse of process and as having no reasonable prospect of success. The Circuit Judge likewise acted within his case-management powers in refusing permission to appeal.
5. The failure to entertain applications made within the proceedings did not amount to procedural impropriety. Once the proceedings were struck out, the court was necessarily not required to consider applications made in those proceedings. The claimant’s argument therefore amounted to a challenge to the necessary consequence of a valid order.

• Edmonton County Court: District Judge Morley struck out the claimant’s proceedings as an abuse of process and because they had no reasonable prospect of success.
• Edmonton County Court: His Honour Judge Riddel refused permission to appeal.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Crane J refused permission for judicial review. Mr Justice Wilkie, on reconsideration, refused permission to appeal.