Argles, R (on the application of) v Visitors to the Inns of Court & Anor

Judicial review claims must be brought promptly and, in any event, within three months after the grounds first arise. An extension requires very good grounds, including a reasonable objective explanation for the delay, and the court may consider prejudice to good administration. The court may examine the underlying merits, but a strong case does not by itself overcome substantial delay where the claimant knew the relevant grounds and the proper remedy. Members of a disciplinary panel who were not formally nominated are not necessarily usurpers. Where they have a legitimate basis and colourable title to sit, their acts may be valid under the de facto judge doctrine.

The claimant challenged decisions of the Visitors to the Inns of Court arising from disciplinary proceedings concerning practice without a practising certificate. The 2003 Visitors Panel dismissed his appeal. In 2007 a further Visitors Panel held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain a supplementary petition challenging the completed appeal and indicated that judicial review was the proper remedy.

A judge refused permission to review the 2007 decision but granted permission concerning the 2003 decision. The claimant renewed the application and argued both that the 2003 decision was procedurally invalid and that the panel had not been properly nominated. The central issues were whether time should be extended and whether the defective nominations made the panel a nullity.

1. Delay. The renewed application concerning the 2003 decision was refused. Under CPR 54.5(1), the claim had to be brought promptly and within three months after the grounds first arose. Under section 31(6) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, undue delay could justify refusal of leave or relief, particularly where relief would harm good administration. Extension of time required very good grounds and a reasonable objective explanation.
2. The claimant knew by October 2005 of the possible procedural irregularity and of the availability of judicial review. He nevertheless pursued a supplementary petition before the Visitors, despite being told in January 2006 that judicial review was the appropriate remedy, and then allowed a further period to elapse before issuing proceedings. Although the court considered the merits, it could not extend time in the circumstances.
3. Defective nomination. The challenge to the 2007 decision was also rejected. Applying the de facto doctrine explained in Baldock v Webster [2004] EWCA Civ 1869, the two improperly nominated panel members were not usurpers. They were on a list of persons regarded as competent and eligible and therefore had a legitimate basis and colourable title to sit. Their acts were consequently valid in law.
4. Permission for judicial review of the 2007 decision was refused. The application concerning the 2003 decision failed through delay. Costs were summarily assessed at £22,067.86 inclusive of VAT, and permission to appeal was refused.

The judgment records that Wilkie J refused permission to review the 2007 decision but granted permission concerning the 2003 decision. The claimant renewed the application before the Divisional Court, which refused relief and refused permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.