Paul Hogan v The County Court at Leeds

Judicial review of a County Court judicial decision is available only on very restricted grounds. The claimant must show more than an arguable legal or factual error, including a judge having allegedly got the case wrong. The threshold requires an error so serious that it amounts to a fundamental failure of the judicial process in the context of the right to a fair trial. Administrative material obtained to clarify what a judge considered may properly be taken into account where the issue is whether relevant submissions were seen and considered. Typographical mistakes and disagreement with the underlying decision do not ordinarily meet the threshold.

The applicant challenged a Specialist Circuit Judge’s refusal on 14 July 2021 of permission to appeal a District Judge’s order striking out his claim against Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Ltd as statute-barred and totally without merit. The Circuit Judge also refused an oral reconsideration under CPR 52.4(3).

The applicant alleged, among other matters, that the Circuit Judge had not considered his skeleton argument, had made procedural errors, and had breached his rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Permission to apply for judicial review had previously been refused on the papers. The renewed application concerned whether any of those complaints was arguable in light of the restricted scope of judicial review of County Court decisions.

1. Application refused. Permission to apply for judicial review of the Circuit Judge’s decision was refused. None of the pleaded or additional grounds was arguable. The application was not certified as totally without merit.
2. Judicial review of a County Court judicial decision has a very restricted ambit. As explained in R (on the application of Oluwole Ogunbiyi v Southend County Court [2015] EWHC 1111 (Admin) and the Court of Appeal’s decision in the same case [2016] EWCA Civ 549, it is insufficient to show that the judge made a serious or even extreme error. The claimant must 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.
3. The Circuit Judge’s note established that the applicant’s skeleton argument, appeal bundle, court file and relevant earlier bundles had been available and considered. It was proper for the Administrative Court to obtain and take that information into account when the central issue concerned what material the Circuit Judge had seen.
4. The Circuit Judge had engaged with all 19 grounds, including the deliberate-concealment arguments. The absence of detailed reasoning on every submission did not disclose an arguable procedural failure. The applicant’s further arguments concerning illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, legitimate expectation and Article 6 added nothing material.
5. Repeatedly referring to the applicant by the wrong surname was a typing error. It was not remotely capable of satisfying the threshold identified in Ogunbiyi. The certification that each ground was totally without merit was not shown to have been automatic or made without proper consideration.
6. The principles in Patel v Mussa [2015] EWCA Civ 434 were consistent with that restricted approach. The renewed application was therefore refused.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): Mr Justice Fordham refused permission on the papers on 18 October 2022. Mrs Justice Hill, on renewal, refused permission to apply for judicial review on 8 June 2023.
2. County Court at Leeds: On 14 July 2021, a Specialist Circuit Judge refused permission to appeal the District Judge’s order of 8 February 2021 and directed that the application could not be reconsidered orally.
3. County Court at Leeds: On 8 February 2021, District Judge Geddes struck out the underlying claim as statute-barred, ordered costs and refused permission to appeal.