Jones, R (On the Application Of) v Nottingham City Council

A consent order disposing of a judicial review claim, including an order for costs determined on written submissions, is a final order. The Administrative Court has no general jurisdiction to reconsider it. The appropriate route for dissatisfaction with the order is an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The power to determine an application without a hearing applies where the parties agree, and extends to making an order following withdrawal of a claim. The limited oral-renewal procedure under rule 54.12 does not create a general right to return to the Administrative Court. Reconsideration may be possible in exceptional cases, such as procedural defect or an ex parte order made without an opportunity to make representations.

The claimant sought judicial review concerning alleged non-compliance by Nottingham City Council with duties under the National Assistance Act 1948. An interim accommodation order was made, after which the council provided what the claimant accepted it could expect. The claim was withdrawn by consent.

The consent order discharged the interim order and directed that costs be determined on written submissions. Sir George Newman made no order for costs. The claimant initially sought to challenge that decision in the Court of Appeal, but was advised that the matter should be referred back to the Administrative Court for an oral hearing. The issue before Mr Justice Collins was whether the Administrative Court had jurisdiction to reconsider the costs decision.

1. The application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The court did not consider the merits of the costs decision.

2. Rules 23.7 and 54.18 permit the court to deal with an application or judicial review claim without a hearing where the parties agree. Although the claim had been withdrawn rather than decided on its merits, those rules were consistent with the court making an order without a hearing, including an order dealing with costs on written submissions.

3. An order resulting from a withdrawal order and consent to costs being dealt with on the papers is nevertheless a final order. A party dissatisfied with it must use the appellate route to the Court of Appeal, applying the principles governing appeals against costs orders.

4. Rule 54.12 provides a specific oral-renewal procedure for paper decisions refusing permission, or granting permission subject to conditions or on limited grounds. Its restricted scope confirms that, absent such a provision, there is generally no right to return to the Administrative Court for reconsideration.

5. Reconsideration may exceptionally be available where there has been a procedural defect or an ex parte order was made without the affected party having an opportunity to make representations. That exception did not apply here, particularly because the order was made by consent.

6. The claimant had initially attempted to proceed in the Court of Appeal but had been wrongly directed back to the Administrative Court. She was not to be penalised for the resulting delay and remained entitled to renew her application there.

The judgment records that the claimant initially sought to appeal the costs order to the Court of Appeal. Following advice from the Civil Appeals Office, she made the present application to the Administrative Court. No written Court of Appeal decision on that procedural issue was available. The Administrative Court held that the matter belonged in the Court of Appeal and that the claimant could renew her application there.