Pigott, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Department of Work & Pensions

Judicial review is not an appeal on the merits. The court reviews the lawfulness of an identified decision, rather than resolving factual disputes entrusted to another body. A claimant must identify the decision challenged, explain the alleged unlawfulness, and bring the challenge promptly. A challenge brought many years after the underlying decision, despite the claimant’s earlier awareness of the relevant complaint, will be refused as out of time.

This was a rolled-up hearing of an application for permission to apply for judicial review and, if permission were granted, the substantive claim. The claimant challenged child support liability, the calculation of arrears, and enforcement action following a liability order obtained in 2004. The underlying assessment dated from 1994. After a request for reconsideration made in 1999 was overlooked, the assessment was reconsidered and revision was refused in November 2004. An appeal and subsequent correspondence followed. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings in October 2005, shortly after bailiffs attended his home. The central issues were whether an identifiable unlawful decision had been challenged and whether the challenge had been brought promptly.

1. Permission refused. The claimant’s true challenge was to the original child support assessment and its underlying basis, rather than merely to the later letter of 12 July 2005. A challenge issued in October 2005 was hopelessly out of time in relation to the assessment made in March 1994 and the subsequent decision-making process.
2. Judicial review is not an appeal on the merits. The Administrative Court is ordinarily concerned with the lawfulness of decisions about factual matters made by other bodies, not with resolving factual disputes such as whether a person had care of a child or paid school fees.
3. A claimant seeking judicial review must identify the decision said to be unlawful, explain why it is unlawful, and persuade the court that the decision has been challenged promptly. Those basic preconditions were not met. The claimant knew that his earnings had been attached, knew that deductions had increased, and had complained in 1999, but waited until enforcement action was imminent.
4. The claimant was ordered to pay the Secretary of State’s costs limited to filing the acknowledgment of service, summarily assessed at £1,220. No order was made for the costs of the hearing. Interim relief was discharged, but enforcement by bailiffs was stayed for seven days and, if a notice of appeal was filed and served within that period, until the Court of Appeal had considered the matter. The Worthing County Court hearing was permitted to proceed.