Herron, R (on the application of) v Parking Adjudicator

An adjournment may be granted where the claimant’s legal challenge has not been adequately particularised, relevant documents are missing, and newly developed issues have not been addressed by the defendant or interested party. The court should ensure that any adjournment is accompanied by directions clarifying the pleaded errors, identifying the documents relied on, and allowing responses within a defined timetable. Permission to amend should be confined to the issues identified by the court. The party responsible for the need to adjourn may be ordered to pay the wasted costs occasioned by the adjournment.

The claimant challenged a parking adjudicator’s decision dated 30 June 2008. During the hearing, the court identified inadequate particularisation of the alleged errors of law and the absence of documents needed to address the challenge. The claimant sought an adjournment to clarify and develop the case.

The proposed issues concerned the absence of reasons relating to the Park Lane Village controlled parking zone, failure to deal with the Regulation 4 argument concerning Sunderland City Council, and the alleged error in the adjudicator’s interpretation and application of that regulation. The court also noted that the earlier decision in De Crittenden had been reached without full legal argument or the relevant background concerning the appointment and funding of parking adjudicators.

1. Adjournment granted. The claimant’s case had required substantial judicial probing before the alleged errors of law could be identified. Two matters had been newly raised or insufficiently developed: the reasons challenge and the substantive Regulation 4 issue concerning Sunderland City Council. The interested party had not had an opportunity to address the developed arguments.
2. The court considered that the issues could potentially result in a decision addressing matters not previously considered fully by the courts. The earlier decision in De Crittenden did not resolve the point because it had proceeded without legal argument on either side and without the full background to the parking adjudicator’s appointment and funding.
3. Permission was granted to amend the claim form, but only in relation to the identified issues: the alleged lack of reasons concerning Park Lane Village; the failure to address the Regulation 4 argument concerning Sunderland City Council; and the alleged error in the adjudicator’s treatment of that regulation.
4. The claimant was directed to provide a clear document setting out the points relied on and the relevant supporting documents. The defendant and interested parties were permitted to respond. The matter was to be relisted after 2 June, with a longer hearing estimate.
5. The adjournment was granted on the basis that the claimant would be liable for the wasted costs of the day, including costs properly attributable to responding to the amended case.

The judgment concerned an application made during the claimant’s judicial review challenge to a parking adjudicator’s decision dated 30 June 2008. The court granted an adjournment and gave directions for amendment and further evidence. No lower-court citation is stated.