Kyle Parvez, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice

At the permission stage of judicial review, the court decides only whether the claim is arguable with a realistic prospect of success. An arguable defence by the defendant does not necessarily justify refusing permission. Where the court, reconsidering the issue afresh after an oral hearing, concludes that the claimant has crossed that threshold, permission should be granted. The permission decision does not determine the substantive merits of the claim.

The claimant sought permission to apply for judicial review against the Secretary of State for Justice. A judge had refused permission on the papers and made a costs order. At an oral hearing, Fordham J reconsidered arguability afresh after hearing focused submissions from both parties. The central issue was whether the claim crossed the threshold for permission despite the defendant having demonstrated an arguable defence.

1. Permission granted. The court’s task was to consider arguability for itself and afresh, having the benefit of oral submissions and direct engagement with counsel on the substance of the case.
2. The defendant had demonstrated an arguable defence. That defence did not amount to a conclusive answer to the claim. The claimant had persuaded the court that the judicial review claim crossed the threshold of arguability with a realistic prospect of success.
3. The court emphasised the limited nature of the decision. It had decided only that permission should be granted. The substantive merits of the judicial review claim remained to be determined.
4. The costs order made when permission was refused on the papers was set aside.

Permission had previously been refused by a judge on the papers. Fordham J reconsidered arguability afresh at an oral hearing, granted permission for judicial review and set aside the related costs order.