DLR Holdings Limited & Anor, R (on the application of) v York Magistrates’ Court & Anor

A judicial review claim may be determined on the papers where all parties agree that a hearing is unnecessary, including where a party does not consent formally but confirms that it does not object. The court must nevertheless exercise its judicial function and satisfy itself that the proposed consent order is legally correct and appropriate. Where unlawfully issued warrants are quashed, consequential relief may include the return and destruction of material obtained under them.

This judgment followed an earlier permission-stage judgment in the same judicial review proceedings, reported as [2022] EWHC 765 (Admin). The claim concerned warrants issued by York Magistrates’ Court under section 108 and Schedule 18 of the Environment Act 1995, authorising entry by the Environment Agency and others onto premises in Hull.

The Environment Agency conceded that the warrants were unlawful because they referred on their face to a power of search which was not exercisable at the relevant time. The claimants and the Agency agreed a consent order, while the Magistrates confirmed that they did not object. The court had to decide whether the order could properly be approved on the papers and whether the agreed relief was legally appropriate.

1. Determination on the papers. The court was entitled to determine the matter without a hearing. Although CPR PD54A §16 refers to consent by all parties, the Magistrates’ confirmation that they did not object was sufficient in the circumstances. In any event, CPR 54.18 provided power to determine the claim on the papers where there was agreement that no hearing was required.
2. Consent order. Consent did not relieve the court of its judicial responsibility. The court independently satisfied itself that the conceded unlawfulness and the proposed terms of the order were legally correct and appropriate. The comparison with R (Kirklees Council) v Secretary of State for Transport [2023] EWHC 2459 (Admin) did not alter that conclusion, because that case involved a party which had made and maintained an objection.
3. Relief. The warrants were quashed and declared unlawfully issued. The claimants were entitled to the return of property removed during execution, and copies of material, interview records, photographs and video recordings obtained under the warrants were to be destroyed within 28 days. The damages claim was transferred to Manchester County Court, and the Agency was ordered to pay the relevant costs, including 60 per cent on account.

The judgment was a sequel to the permission-stage judgment in the same judicial review proceedings, reported as [2022] EWHC 765 (Admin). The present court approved the agreed consent order.