Damian Ferko v Ealing Magistrates Court & Ors

On an appeal by case stated, the High Court’s power under Senior Courts Act 1981, section 28A is to remit the case to the magistrates’ court for amendment. The High Court cannot simply amend the case stated itself. The case stated must accurately identify the decision challenged, the questions of law or jurisdiction, the relevant procedural history, findings of fact and contentions, and, where sufficiency of evidence is in issue, the material findings and evidence. Case management should secure an effective hearing of all issues raised by the appellant, subject to abuse of process.

The appellant brought a statutory-nuisance complaint under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 concerning mould in rented premises. The Ealing Magistrates’ Court dismissed the complaint against the landlord and freehold owners on submissions of no case to answer. It later stated a case under section 111 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980, posing questions about reasons and causation.

The appellant applied under section 28A(2) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to amend the case stated, arguing that it omitted relevant findings, evidence and legal issues and included findings and reasons supplied after the decisions. The central issue was whether the case stated adequately framed the questions requiring determination on the appeal.

1. Application granted. The case stated was remitted to the Ealing Magistrates’ Court for amendment, with guidance and proposed amendments supplied by the High Court.
2. Under section 28A(2) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the High Court may cause a case stated to be sent back for amendment. The High Court has no power simply to amend the case stated itself.
3. The appeal by case stated is confined to questions of law and jurisdiction. The case stated must accurately identify the decision challenged, the legal questions, the relevant history, findings of fact and contentions. Where sufficiency of evidence is questioned, it must also identify the relevant finding and summarise the supporting evidence.
4. The existing questions were insufficient. The appeal raised issues concerning reasons for each defendant, later ex post facto reasons and findings, causation, statutory interpretation, notice requirements and the no-case-to-answer decisions.
5. Following R. Estate and Agency v Westminster Magistrates Court [2012] EWHC 4637 (Admin), the case-management objective was to include all issues raised by the appellant so that the appeal could be effectively heard, subject to abuse of process.

The judgment concerns an interlocutory application in an appeal by case stated from the Ealing Magistrates’ Court. The full appeal was to be heard later.

• Ealing Magistrates’ Court: dismissed the statutory-nuisance complaint on submissions of no case to answer and subsequently stated a case under section 111 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980.
• High Court (Administrative Court): granted the application under section 28A(2) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and remitted the case stated to the magistrates’ court for amendment.