Imaging & Art Studio Ltd v Oxford County Court

Judicial review is not a substitute for an appeal against a county court judgment or case-management decision. Where the complaint concerns how the county court decided the dispute and the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 provide an appeal route, dissatisfaction with the result does not establish an arguable judicial-review claim. Requiring a non-party to provide documents on payment of reasonable expenses is compatible with Article 6. The reasonableness of the charge is a matter for the civil court and its appellate process.

The appellant’s claim against Norman Hudson & Co concerning reprographic work was dismissed in the Oxford County Court after disputes about the quality of negatives, access to documents, expert evidence and the conduct of the trial. Instead of appealing the county court judgment, the appellant sought judicial review of the Oxford County Court. Newman J refused permission, and McCombe J refused a renewed application: [2006] EWHC 896 (Admin). The appellant sought permission to appeal, alleging breaches of Article 6, discrimination and the absence of an adequate remedy under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. The central issue was whether those complaints disclosed an arguable basis for judicial review.

The Court of Appeal, in a single judgment delivered by Lord Justice Thomas, dismissed the application for permission to appeal. McCombe J had been entirely correct.

1. The appellant’s complaints concerned decisions made in the conduct and determination of county court proceedings. They did not raise any issue going to the jurisdiction of the County Court. The proper route for a dissatisfied litigant was the appeal procedure provided by Part 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. Judicial review could not be used to circumvent that route.
2. The order requiring payment for access to negatives held by Skyscan did not disclose an arguable breach of Article 6. A non-party whose documents are required for the just disposal of litigation may be required to produce them on payment of reasonable expenses. Any dispute about the reasonableness of the charge was a question of fact for determination within the civil procedural system, including by appeal.
3. The complaints concerning access to documents, expert evidence and the conduct of the hearing were matters of ordinary civil procedure. The fact that the appellant was dissatisfied with decisions made at first instance and on appeal did not make the claim amenable to judicial review.
4. There was no basis for alleging that the Oxford County Court system was discriminatory. If the appellant believed there was discrimination, it could set out the grounds of concern and ask the senior judiciary responsible for the court to consider whether the appeal should be heard elsewhere. That did not create an arguable jurisdictional or public-law challenge to the county court decisions.

There was no realistic prospect of the judicial-review claim succeeding. The application was accordingly dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The application for permission to appeal was dismissed on 7 February 2007.
2. Administrative Court: McCombe J refused the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review on 9 March 2006: [2006] EWHC 896 (Admin). Newman J had earlier refused permission on paper.
3. Oxford County Court: The appellant’s underlying claim concerning unpaid invoices and damages was dismissed after trial. The Circuit Judge had upheld procedural orders concerning access to negatives and costs.