Sangha, R (on the application of) v Stratford Magistrates Court

In judicial review of a magistrates’ court decision, the claimant must provide sufficient material to demonstrate legal error. The absence of a transcript or agreed note may weigh against the claimant. Where evidence could support the decision, the court need not infer Wednesbury unreasonableness. A challenge must also be brought promptly once the claimant knows of the decision. Permission to appeal should be refused where there is no real prospect of success and no other compelling reason.

The applicant sought judicial review of a District Judge’s refusal to set aside a liability order for national non-domestic rates. The Administrative Court dismissed the application. The Deputy High Court Judge held that the available material did not establish that the District Judge’s factual conclusion was unavailable to him and that the challenge had not been brought promptly after the applicant became aware of the liability order. The applicant then sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

1. Disposition. Permission to appeal was refused. The applicant had no real prospect of success and there was no other compelling reason to grant permission.
2. Record of the magistrates’ court proceedings. The challenge depended partly on whether the District Judge could properly conclude that relevant documents had been received. There was no transcript or agreed account of the hearing. As the applicant sought to overturn the decision, it was incumbent on him to place the necessary material before the Administrative Court. The absence of that material therefore counted against him. Evidence existed which could support the District Judge’s conclusions, so the Deputy High Court Judge was entitled to find that there was no Wednesbury unreasonable conclusion or decision based on no evidence.
3. Promptness. Promptness is required in judicial review proceedings. The requirement was treated as established by the authorities, including R (Brighton and Hove Council) v Brighton and Hove Justices [2004] EWHC 1800 (Admin), which was partly based on Liverpool City Council v Pleroma Distribution Ltd [2002] EWHC 2467 (Admin). The applicant knew of the liability order by early September 2004 at the latest, but proceedings were not commenced until January 2006. The finding of delay was therefore inevitable.
4. Final order. The applicant’s submissions did not establish an arguable basis for an appeal. Application refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal refused; application refused, under [2009] EWCA Civ 1099.
2. Administrative Court: On 15 October 2008, Mr Robert Jay QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, dismissed the application for judicial review of the District Judge’s refusal to set aside the liability order.