Watkins, R (on the application of) v Newcastle Upon Tyne County Court & Anor

Judicial review of a County Court decision is a highly attenuated jurisdiction. It is not an alternative appeal route for correcting legal or factual error, even serious error. Intervention requires a truly exceptional frustration or corruption of the judicial process, such as a complete failure to adjudicate a matter which the court had an unequivocal duty to address or a wholly exceptional collapse of fair procedure.

Where the overriding objective requires it, the court has power to determine a renewed permission application in a party’s absence. That power is also supported by the inherent jurisdiction necessary to enable the court to act effectively.

The claimant occupied an almshouse flat under a letter of appointment. The charity obtained a possession order after the District Judge found that she was a licensee rather than a tenant. The claimant later sought permission to appeal, but His Honour Judge Kramer refused permission because the tenancy argument had not been pleaded. The claimant then brought judicial review proceedings against the County Court decision.

Permission was refused on the papers by Jeremy Baker J. The renewed application raised whether the refusal of permission involved an error capable of review and whether the tenancy issue had been substantively determined. The claimant did not attend the renewed hearing.

1. Application refused. The renewed application for permission to challenge the decision of His Honour Judge Kramer by judicial review was refused.
2. The court’s jurisdiction to review judicial decisions of County Courts is highly attenuated. The claimant had to establish something truly egregious or outrageous amounting to a complete abrogation of the judicial process in the context of the right to a fair trial. A decision which is merely wrong, even extremely wrong in law or fact, does not satisfy that threshold. The approach in R (on the application of Strickson) v Preston County Court [2007] EWCA Civ 1132, as clarified in R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2009] EWHC 3052 (Admin), was applied.
3. The refusal of permission was incapable of meeting that threshold. His Honour Judge Kramer was arguably entitled to conclude that the tenancy issue could not be raised on appeal because it had not been pleaded. Alternatively, the District Judge had addressed the substantive issue and had reached a conclusion on the licence or tenancy question which he was entitled to reach. On either analysis, there had been no wholly exceptional collapse of fair procedure.
4. Although the claimant was absent, it was fair and just to proceed. A renewed permission hearing was unlikely to be a trial engaging Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 39(3). Nevertheless, applying the principle stated in Connelly v Director of Public Prosecutions [1964] AC 1254 at 1301, the court possessed the powers necessary to act effectively within its jurisdiction, including proceeding in the claimant’s absence where required by the overriding objective.

• Newcastle upon Tyne County Court: The District Judge made a possession order after finding that the claimant was a licensee and not a tenant.
• County Court appeal application: His Honour Judge Kramer refused permission to appeal on 8 March 2018 because the tenancy issue had not been pleaded.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Jeremy Baker J refused permission for judicial review on the papers on 13 April 2018. Mr Justice Turner refused the renewed application on 2 May 2018.