Potier, R (on the application of) v Land Registry

Permission for judicial review should be refused where the proposed challenge is unarguable on the merits. Judicial review is not an appeal against an administrative decision; the claimant must identify an error of law or other recognised public-law ground. An application must be made promptly and, in any event, within three months of the grounds arising. An extension requires good reason, and substantial unexplained delay may justify refusal even where imprisonment contributed to the delay. At the permission stage, the court may determine the application without oral submissions where the issues are sufficiently documented and doing so causes no unfairness.

The claimant sought permission to challenge the Land Registry’s refusal to register an alleged life tenancy over property formerly owned with his ex-wife. He alleged that a transfer of his interest had been forged and sought registration of a restriction or notice.

Permission had previously been refused on the papers by Nicol J on 8 October 2014 for delay and absence of arguable grounds. The renewed application was heard without either party attending. The central issues were whether the proposed judicial review was arguable, whether time should be extended, and whether the hearing should be adjourned.

1. Merits. The claim was unarguable. The claimant’s allegations concerned the effect of historic transfers, alleged forgery and claimed equitable rights in land. The Land Registry’s grounds, including the effect of Land Registration Act 2002, section 29, and Law of Property Act 1925, section 27(2), disclosed no basis for registering a restriction or notice prejudicial to the present registered proprietor. Any equitable interest had been postponed on the subsequent valuable transfers, and any claim arising from overreaching lay against the trustees or sale proceeds.
2. Nature of judicial review. The claimant’s request for further particulars reflected a misunderstanding of the proceedings. Judicial review is not an appeal from the Land Registry. A legally recognised error must be identified.
3. Delay. The application had to be made promptly and within three months of the grounds of challenge arising. The relevant decision was dated 8 August 2012. The claim, issued on 30 September 2014 and based on a letter of 15 July 2013, was fourteen months late even by the claimant’s chosen date and two years late by the earlier date. His imprisonment in Australia made preparation difficult, but did not explain the extent of the delay. No sufficient reason for an extension was established.
4. Adjournment and fairness. The adjournment request was refused. The case was sufficiently documented for a fair determination, further delay would prejudice the defendant and undermine the expeditious conduct required by CPR 1.1, and the claimant had not shown that he could attend a future hearing. The absence of oral submissions from the defendant meant that the claimant suffered no procedural disadvantage from the court proceeding.
5. Permission was refused on both the merits and delay grounds. No order for costs was made.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): Permission had been refused on the papers by Nicol J on 8 October 2014. On renewal, Lang J refused permission on the merits and for delay: [2015] EWHC 4214 (Admin).