Babalola, R (on the application of) v Bromley County Court

Judicial review of a County Court decision is available for an error of law only in a highly exceptional and very narrow category of case. The Administrative Court should not interfere with a County Court judge’s decision where the alleged errors do not arguably place the case within that category. The availability of an ordinary appeal, and the claimant’s failure to pursue it in time, reinforce the need for judicial review to remain exceptional.

The claimant sought judicial review of decisions concerning an interim injunction application and a costs order made by District Judge Brooks in the Bromley County Court in September 2013. The application for an interim injunction was dismissed and costs of £4,087.20 were awarded against the claimant.

The claimant did not appeal within time. His later application for permission to appeal was refused by Her Honour Judge Redgrave, both on the papers and following renewal, principally because it was woefully out of time without an adequate explanation. He then sought judicial review, alleging errors of law, Convention incompatibility, inadequate reasons, disproportionate costs and procedural defects. The central issue was whether the case was sufficiently exceptional to permit judicial review of the County Court decisions.

1. Application dismissed. Permission to apply for judicial review was refused. There was no arguable ground for judicial review.
2. Judicial review lies for an error of law, but interference with a decision of a County Court judge is permissible only in very exceptional and extreme circumstances. The relevant category is narrow, as reflected in Access to Justice Act 1999, section 54(4), and the authorities referred to in the White Book.
3. The claimant’s complaints about the District Judge’s understanding of the case, the treatment of the defendants’ positions, Convention rights, evidential testing, reasons, costs, the private hearing and the route of appeal did not arguably disclose an error of law falling within that exceptional category.
4. The interim injunction application was a free-standing application made before allocation to a track. The costs order related to that unsuccessful application, rather than to any subsequently contemplated case-management track.
5. The ordinary appellate route lay to the Circuit Judge. The claimant failed to appeal within time, and his later application for permission to appeal was refused because of the substantial unexplained delay. Those circumstances did not provide a basis for converting the matter into a judicial review.

The judge declined to grant permission to appeal and indicated that any further request would have to be made to the Court of Appeal.

The judgment records the following prior procedural steps:

• Bromley County Court: District Judge Brooks dismissed the interim injunction application on 16 September 2013 and ordered costs of £4,087.20 against the claimant. The order was sealed on 26 September 2013.
• Bromley County Court: Her Honour Judge Redgrave refused permission to appeal on 31 October 2014 and again on 5 February 2015, principally because the proposed appeal was substantially out of time without an adequate explanation.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The claim for judicial review was dismissed and permission to apply was refused.