Prankerd, R (on the application of) v Truro County Court

Judicial review of a County Court decision is ordinarily inappropriate while the statutory or procedural appeal route remains available. Even after a County Court judge has refused permission to appeal, intervention by judicial review is confined to the most exceptional circumstances. A claim challenging the handling of litigation or alleging judicial bias must disclose a realistic basis for relief. Where a renewed permission application appears wholly without merit, the court may give the claimant an opportunity to reconsider and argue the matter before striking it out, particularly where illness has prevented attendance.

The claimant sought permission to apply for judicial review of a decision by a judge of the Truro County Court refusing leave to appeal from a deputy district judge’s refusal of permission to lodge a counterclaim. The underlying County Court proceedings concerned the financing of a vehicle. The claimant alleged, among other matters, that the County Court process involved a jurisdictional failure and that judges had acted with personal animosity towards her.

The application was renewed before the Administrative Court. The claimant did not attend because of illness, but supplied a medical certificate. The central issue was whether judicial review could properly be used to challenge the County Court decision after the available appeal route had not been exhausted.

1. Permission application. The renewed application was hopeless and without merit. The claimant had sought to characterise the matter as an attack on jurisdiction, but the substance was a challenge to decisions made in County Court proceedings.
2. Alternative appeal route. The County Court system provides for appeals. Judicial review will not ordinarily intervene until the claimant has exhausted those rights. Following Sivasubramanian v Wandsworth County Court, only the most exceptional circumstances could justify this form of application after a County Court judge had refused leave to appeal.
3. Judicial allegations. A litigant cannot avoid a judge merely because that judge previously decided a case against the litigant or because the litigant disliked the way the case was handled. The claimant’s allegations of personal animosity, mala fides and malicious conduct disclosed no apparent basis for relief.
4. Procedural fairness. Although the claim appeared totally without merit, it would be inappropriate to deprive the claimant of the opportunity to appear and argue the point when illness had prevented attendance. The reasons were to be transcribed and sent to her. She was given 14 days from receipt to indicate whether she wished to pursue the claim. If she did not do so, the claim would be struck out. If she persisted and the claim was found to be totally without merit, she was warned that an order restricting further claims before the High Court or County Court might be considered.

The claimant renewed an application for permission to seek judicial review in the Administrative Court. The application concerned:

• Truro County Court: a deputy district judge refused permission to lodge a counterclaim, and His Honour Judge Tyzack refused leave to appeal in November 2004.
• High Court (Administrative Court): the renewed application was held hopeless and without merit, but the claimant was given 14 days to indicate whether she wished to attend and pursue it.