Charles Eta & Co Solicitors, R (on the application of) v Xerox Finance Ltd

The Administrative Court’s jurisdiction to review a county court decision is confined to narrow jurisdictional error, or a serious failure of natural justice or another basic procedural requirement such that there was in reality no hearing. It is not a route for reconsidering the merits, alleged errors of law within the county court’s jurisdiction, or evidential and procedural complaints that fall short of that threshold. A claimant seeking permission must identify a case within that limited framework. Persistence with a hopeless claim after the governing principles have been explained may justify an exceptional costs order in favour of an interested party.

The claimant sought renewed permission to apply for judicial review of decisions made in contractual proceedings against Xerox Finance Ltd in the Central London County Court. The county court had granted summary judgment and ordered return of equipment, later assessing the sum payable. Permission to appeal was refused, and a Deputy High Court Judge refused permission for judicial review.

The claimant challenged matters including the application of statutory provisions, the use of without-prejudice correspondence, the operation of Part 24 and the fairness of the hearing. The central issue was whether any complaint disclosed the narrow grounds on which the Administrative Court could review a county court decision.

1. Permission refused. The renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review was refused. The claim was described as totally without merit.
2. The jurisdiction of the Administrative Court in relation to county court decisions is limited to jurisdictional error in the narrow sense: the county court must have done something it had no power to do. It also extends to a serious failure of natural justice or another basic procedural requirement such that there was, in reality, no hearing. These principles were derived from R (on the application of Sivasubramaniam) v Wandsworth County Court [2003] 1 WLR 475 and R (on the application of Strickson) v Preston County Court [2007] EWCA Civ 1132.
3. The claimant had not formulated any ground within that framework. Complaints concerning the use of without-prejudice correspondence, the application of statutory provisions, Part 24, and the merits of the county court’s decision did not amount to jurisdictional error or a basic denial of a hearing.
4. An adjournment to obtain a transcript was unnecessary. A transcript would have been relevant only if the claimant had identified a potentially arguable point within the governing framework. It could not properly be obtained merely to search for such a point after ample time had been available to formulate one.
5. The claimant’s persistence after the Deputy High Court Judge had explained the applicable principles supported an exceptional costs order. Applying the exception identified in Mount Cook, the interested party was awarded £750 inclusive of VAT, in addition to the costs previously ordered.

The judgment itself describes earlier County Court proceedings and the refusal of permission to appeal, but this was a renewed first-instance application for judicial review in the Administrative Court.