Strickson, R (on the application of) v Preston County Court & Ors

Where legislation restricts county court litigation to one level of appeal, judicial review of a circuit judge’s decision granting or refusing permission to appeal remains available only in a truly exceptional case. An error of law, however clear or serious, does not suffice.

Intervention may be justified where the judicial process itself has been frustrated or corrupted. Examples include a narrow jurisdictional error, a substantial denial of a fair hearing, a complete disregard of judicial duties or an unjustified failure to determine a point which plainly requires authoritative resolution in the public interest.

The appellant’s daughter died after taking drugs while missing from home. He brought claims against a local authority and a chief constable, alleging negligence, breach of statutory duty and breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights. The county court struck out the proceedings because the claim form had not been served in time.

A circuit judge refused permission to appeal. Section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 precluded any further statutory appeal. Goldring J considered that the county court judges had wrongly rejected the appellant’s waiver argument but refused judicial review because the case was not exceptional.

The central issue was when the High Court may judicially review a county court judge’s decision granting or refusing permission to appeal after further appeal rights have been curtailed.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The High Court retains jurisdiction to review a county court judge’s decision granting or refusing permission to appeal. Section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 does not oust that jurisdiction. Its policy nevertheless requires the Administrative Court to refuse review unless the case is truly exceptional.

2. The exceptional category is not confined strictly to jurisdictional errors in the narrow, pre-Anisminic sense. The governing distinction is between a judge who reaches a wrong conclusion, even an extremely wrong one, and a case in which the judicial process itself has been frustrated or corrupted. The latter may include embarking on an inquiry which the court has no power to undertake, failing altogether to adjudicate upon a matter which it has an unequivocal duty to address, a substantial denial of a fair hearing, a complete disregard of judicial duties or an unjustified failure to resolve a point which plainly requires a definitive answer in the public interest.

3. The county court judges had jurisdiction to determine the service and waiver issues. On Goldring J’s conclusions, they had misapplied Part 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, but that remained an error of law rather than a narrow jurisdictional error. The parties had been properly heard, there was no bias or gross procedural failure, and the reasons given did not reveal a frustration or corruption of the judicial process.

4. The possible engagement of article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights did not make the case exceptional. Article 2 did not require a second tier of appeal in these civil proceedings. The available system included civil proceedings and an inquest; the difficulty arose initially from the failure to pursue the civil proceedings with due diligence and comply with procedural rules, rather than from any systemic deficiency.

5. The importance and tragic circumstances of the underlying claim could not displace the statutory policy limiting appellate review. Laws LJ delivered the judgment, with which Gage and Rimer LJJ agreed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Dismissed the appeal and affirmed Goldring J’s refusal of judicial review: [2007] EWCA Civ 1132 .
2. Administrative Court: Goldring J held that the county court judges had erred on waiver but declined to quash the circuit judge’s refusal of permission to appeal.
3. Preston County Court: HHJ Appleton refused permission to appeal from District Judge Law, who had struck out the underlying claim and declared the proceedings null and void because the claim form had not been served in time.