Bunce, R (on the application of) v Pensions Appeal Tribunal

Permission to apply for judicial review should be refused where the challenged tribunal decision discloses no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness, Convention breach or irrationality. A tribunal’s findings of fact are not open to challenge merely because another conclusion might be available: the question is whether the findings were properly open to it on the evidence. Where the substantive judicial review claim cannot proceed, related applications, including an application to set aside an earlier refusal and an application for disclosure, will also fail.

The claimant sought permission to apply for judicial review of a Pensions Appeal Tribunal decision dated 8 May 2006, concerning the reduction of his disablement assessment. Permission had previously been refused by Mr Kenneth Parker QC on 15 June 2006.

The claimant renewed the permission application and also sought to set aside the earlier order and obtain disclosure of documentary material said to relate to the proposed judicial review. He alleged irrationality, procedural unfairness and breaches of Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention.

1. Permission refused. The court considered the renewed application on its merits, despite the fact that some matters relied upon post-dated the original application.
2. The Pensions Appeal Tribunal had directed itself correctly on the law. Its findings of fact were clearly open to it on the evidence. There was therefore no identifiable error of law and no arguable ground for judicial review.
3. The claimant’s allegations that the decision was one which no reasonable tribunal could have reached, was procedurally unfair, or breached Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention disclosed no arguable basis for intervention.
4. The application to set aside the earlier refusal of permission was merely another way of expressing the first application and failed for the same reason.
5. The disclosure application was consequential upon the proposed judicial review. Since permission was refused, that application also failed. All three applications were dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to apply for judicial review had previously been refused by Mr Kenneth Parker QC on 15 June 2006. The renewed application, application to set aside that order, and disclosure application were all dismissed.