Purvis, R (on the application of) v Legal Service Commission

Judicial review is a discretionary remedy, and the court will generally decline to determine issues that have become academic. A rare exception may arise where the issue has widespread public importance and warrants a ruling despite ceasing to affect the parties. The court must also apply the overriding objective, including proportionality and efficient use of court resources. Where material changes in circumstances have made the challenged assessment historical and no subsisting decision remains for review, the claim should be dismissed without determining its merits.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Legal Services Commission’s decisions concerning his financial eligibility for public funding. His original application had received partial merits approval, but the related funding offer was not accepted. During the proceedings, his financial and business circumstances changed substantially, and the earlier assessments became historical.

The Commission required a fresh application before undertaking a current assessment. The claimant maintained that his original application remained valid and should be reassessed. The central issue was whether any live decision remained capable of review.

1. The claim was dismissed. It was dismissed without consideration of the merits because substantial changes in the claimant’s financial circumstances had made the existing claim academic.
2. Judicial review is discretionary. The court will generally avoid deciding issues that are or have become academic. A possible exception exists for issues of widespread public importance where a ruling is desirable despite the dispute no longer continuing between the parties. This case did not fall within that exception.
3. The court was also required to apply the overriding objective in Part 1.1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, including active case management, proportionality of costs and proportionate use of court resources. Continuing the proceedings would serve no useful purpose because the March and May 2012 financial assessments no longer reflected the claimant’s circumstances.
4. The Legal Services Commission was entitled, and indeed obliged, to satisfy itself about the current circumstances of proposed proceedings and their prospects before providing public funding. However, the judge considered that this information might have been obtained by means other than insisting upon completion of an entirely fresh form, including seeking an updated certification from the solicitors who had completed the original application.
5. The court could not make orders governing the future progress of the claimant’s funding application after dismissing the judicial review. It nevertheless urged both parties to adopt a pragmatic approach. The claimant’s refusal to co-operate with reasonable requests could result in the absence of any funding offer, while the Commission should consider whether current information could be obtained without compounding the waste and expense of the litigation.
6. There was no order as to costs, save for any costs orders already made, although none had been identified.