John Stuart Salmon v The Chief Land Registrar

A court cannot rehear a judicial review claim that has already been decided and dismissed. An oral judgment and order take effect when pronounced unless the judgment provides otherwise; the absence of a sealed order does not adjourn or invalidate the decision. Any challenge to the substance of the decision must be pursued by appeal. A later court may make a sealed order recording the earlier order, but should preserve the existing legal position and must avoid inadvertently restarting an expired enforcement period. A proposed appeal does not ordinarily justify a stay of execution where the applicant provides no evidence supporting a departure from the usual rule.

The applicant challenged the consequences of a 2012 County Court order requiring him to convey property and providing for execution of the relevant transfer by a district judge if he failed to comply. Following registration of the new proprietors, he brought judicial review proceedings against the Chief Land Registrar. Simon J dismissed the claim orally on 23 June 2014 and refused permission to appeal, but no sealed order was located.

The applicant sought a rehearing or, alternatively, a sealed order disposing of the judicial review claim. The Chief Land Registrar applied under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 CPR 3.1(m) for an order confirming the earlier dismissal.

1. The rehearing application was dismissed. A final adjudication is conclusive between the parties as to matters necessarily determined. There could be no rehearing of a judicial review claim that Simon J had already heard and dismissed.
2. The absence of a sealed order did not mean that the proceedings were de facto adjourned. Under CPR 40.7, Simon J’s dismissal took effect when his oral judgment was given because the judgment contained no direction postponing its effect.
3. The document recorded as Simon J’s judgment was accepted as an approved record. The evidence included consistency with contemporaneous notes, the absence of expected transcription errors, and confirmation from the transcription provider that the draft had been returned approved.
4. The court did not reopen the construction of s38 of the County Courts Act 1984 or s39 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. Simon J had addressed the applicant’s arguments, including the proposed two-stage process and the alleged lack of County Court power. The applicant’s remedy, if dissatisfied with the earlier order, was an appeal.
5. The Chief Land Registrar’s application was allowed, with amendments, so that a sealed order would declare the orders made by Simon J on 23 June 2014. The formulation preserved the status quo and did not restart the period for enforcing the earlier costs order. The applicant’s alternative application was dismissed because the Chief Land Registrar’s formulation was preferable.
6. Costs were ordered against the applicant. His application for a stay pending a proposed appeal was refused. He supplied no evidence of his financial position and accepted that enforcement would not stifle the appeal, so there was no basis for departing from the usual rule.

1. High Court, Simon J: Judicial review proceedings were dismissed orally on 23 June 2014. Permission to appeal was refused and the proposed appeal was certified as totally without merit.
2. Court of Appeal: The applicant’s permission application was not accepted because it was not accompanied by a sealed order. The present court stated that a fresh application for permission remained open in principle on receipt of the sealed order.
3. High Court, Richards J: The rehearing application and the applicant’s alternative application were dismissed. The Chief Land Registrar’s application was allowed, with amendments, and costs were awarded. A stay of execution was refused.