Lilley, R (on the application of) v Central London County Court

A renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review should be filed promptly and, in any event, within three months after the grounds arose. An extension requires good reasons. A substantial delay, unsupported by adequate reasons, may justify dismissal without consideration of the merits. Where legislation provides a comprehensive appeal and review scheme through independent adjudicators, the County Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal or application challenging an adjudicator’s decision. A charging scheme is not ultra vires where it operates within the four corners of its parent legislation.

The claimant challenged congestion charges and a penalty charge notice issued by Transport for London. His statutory appeal to an adjudicator was dismissed, and the adjudicator’s decision was reviewed. Subsequent County Court proceedings were struck out for want of jurisdiction. Permission to appeal was refused, and a later application was also refused as out of time and without merit.

Foskett J refused permission for judicial review on paper. The claimant renewed the application before the Administrative Court. The issues were whether time should be extended, whether the County Court had jurisdiction despite the statutory appeal scheme, and whether the congestion-charge regime was ultra vires.

1. Application refused. The renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review was dismissed in its entirety.
2. Under CPR 54.5, a claim for judicial review must be filed promptly and in any event within three months after the grounds arose. The court may extend time where there are good reasons. The claimant’s explanations, considered on paper and in oral argument, fell far short of that standard. The delay independently justified dismissal without further consideration of the merits.
3. The Road User Charging Enforcement Adjudication London Regulations 2001 provided a comprehensive appeal and review procedure involving independent adjudicators. Having used that procedure, the claimant could not pursue an appeal or application in the County Court against the adjudicator’s decision. The strike-out was correct.
4. The challenge based on the Human Rights Act and Magna Carta was wholly misconceived. Applying the classic ultra vires doctrine, the congestion-charge scheme was enacted within the four corners of its parent legislation and was therefore not ultra vires on that basis.
5. All claims against all eight defendants were wholly without merit. The claimant was ordered to pay Transport for London’s costs, summarily assessed at £1,455 and payable within 14 days.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): Foskett J refused permission for judicial review on paper on 27 October 2008. The claimant renewed the application, which was refused by His Honour Judge McKenna.
2. Central London County Court: Earlier proceedings against Transport for London were struck out because the County Court lacked jurisdiction in light of the statutory adjudication and review scheme. Subsequent permission applications were refused.