Willing, R (on the application of) v Canterbury County Court

Judicial review of a county court decision is available only in truly exceptional circumstances. The stringent test is confined to narrow pre-Anisminic jurisdictional error or procedural irregularity which substantially denies a fair hearing, and may include frustration or corruption of the judicial process. Mere error of law or fact, even serious error, is insufficient. The restricted approach to county court decisions remains distinct from the second-appeal test applicable to specialist tribunals.

The claimant challenged orders requiring her to execute a new lease following leasehold enfranchisement proceedings. The Canterbury County Court held that it had jurisdiction and ordered her to execute the lease, with consequential costs directions. Permission to appeal was refused by a circuit judge, and the Court of Appeal indicated that no second appeal lay.

The claimant then sought judicial review of the county court decisions. Permission was refused on paper by Mostyn J. The renewed application alleged jurisdictional error and procedural irregularity, including an unfair hearing and errors concerning the leasehold legislation, procedure and costs.

1. The renewed application was dismissed. The claimant had not established a basis for judicial review of the county court decision.
2. The applicable test was exceptionally narrow. Judicial review of county court work is confined to two extreme cases: jurisdictional error in the narrow pre-Anisminic sense, or procedural irregularity amounting to a denial of the right to a fair hearing. The approach in R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2011] UKSC 28 did not alter that settled distinction between ordinary courts and specialist tribunals.
3. As explained in Strickson v Preston County Court [2011] EWCA Civ 1132, a judge merely getting the law or facts wrong, even extremely wrong, does not suffice. The exceptional case is one in which the judicial process itself has been frustrated or corrupted. This may include a narrow jurisdictional error, failure altogether to adjudicate on a matter which the court was bound to address, substantial denial of a fair hearing, or possibly complete disregard of judicial duties.
4. Even assuming that the county court judges had erred in law, they had jurisdiction, received and considered the arguments, and adjudicated the issues. The claimant had also accepted that she had a full opportunity to present her case before the circuit judge. There was therefore no qualifying jurisdictional error or substantial denial of a fair hearing.
5. The claimant’s dissatisfaction with the outcome and allegations of ordinary legal or procedural error could not overcome the stringent limits on judicial review of county court decisions.

The judgment describes the following procedural history:

• Leasehold Valuation Tribunal: determined the lease terms and premium on 9 May 2013.
• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): refused permission to appeal on 19 July 2013.
• High Court: Laing J refused permission for judicial review on 22 October 2013; the application was treated as a Cart case and the decision was final under Civil Procedure Rules Part 54.7A.
• Canterbury County Court: District Judge Jackson held that the county court had jurisdiction and ordered execution of a new lease on 5 June 2014.
• Circuit judge: Judge Murdoch QC refused permission to appeal.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Mostyn J refused permission on paper on 28 January 2015. Davis J dismissed the renewed application.