Brown, R (on the application of) v Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court

Judicial review is not the proper means of challenging the substance of a county court order where an adequate appeal route exists. However, the Administrative Court may intervene to secure procedural fairness where an intended appeal has not received the consideration required by the court’s order, particularly where the omission remains capable of correction and no irreversible prejudice has occurred.

Relief may preserve the proceedings and direct that the underlying appeal application be heard, without expressing any view on the merits of the challenge to the original order.

Mr Brown sought judicial review concerning proceedings in the Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court. A deputy district judge had made, or continued, a final charging order over his land in favour of NSL Services Group Limited.

Mr Brown criticised the hearing on several substantive and procedural grounds. He had sought permission to appeal to a Circuit Judge. That application was refused on the papers, with permission to apply to set aside or vary the refusal within seven days.

Mr Brown wrote within time requesting an oral hearing and seeking fee exemption. The county court did not deal with the extension-of-time or fee-exemption issue, and no oral hearing of his permission application took place. The central issue was whether judicial review relief should be granted to secure that hearing.

1. Judicial review and alternative remedy. The proper route for challenging the criticisms made of the deputy district judge’s hearing, including the substance of the objections to the charging order, was an appeal to a Circuit Judge. Judicial review was not used to determine whether the charging order was substantively appropriate.
2. Failure to process the appeal application. Mr Brown’s letter was sufficiently clear to amount to an application for an oral hearing of his permission application. Although he had not used the prescribed form or paid the fee, the court knew that he sought fee exemption, held the original document relevant to that application, and had been asked for an extension of time if necessary. The failure to deal with those matters meant that the requested oral hearing had not been provided.
3. Relief. The position remained capable of correction. The charging order had not been enforced, and nothing irrevocable or irretrievable had occurred. The court therefore directed that the fee-exemption application, limited to the oral hearing for permission to appeal, be treated as successfully made, and that the application for permission to appeal be listed for an oral hearing before a Circuit Judge at the first available date, with notice to NSL Services Group Limited.
4. The court declined to discharge the charging order, remove the Land Registry entry, or determine the merits of Mr Brown’s objections. Those matters remained for the proper county court process.

The judgment describes earlier proceedings in the Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court, including the charging order made on 1 August 2013. Permission to seek judicial review was granted by Holman J on 8 May 2014. The Administrative Court granted procedural relief and directed an oral hearing of Mr Brown’s application for permission to appeal before a Circuit Judge.