Denise Bell-King, R (on the application of) v Network Rail Infrastructure

Judicial review of County Court case-management decisions is confined to exceptional circumstances. A possible denial of a fair hearing may constitute such a circumstance, but the claimant must show an arguable public-law error with a realistic prospect of success.

Judicial review must be brought promptly and within three months of the grounds arising. Litigants in person generally receive no lower standard of procedural compliance unless the relevant rule is inaccessible or obscure. A claim may also fail because the named defendant did not make the challenged decision.

The claimant’s personal injury claim against Network Rail was struck out in the County Court after repeated failures to comply with unless orders. Her appeal was later struck out for failure to provide the transcript required to pursue complaints about the fairness of the original hearing.

The claimant sought judicial review of the County Court’s later decision, naming Network Rail as defendant. Permission was refused on paper, together with a costs order. On renewal, the issues were whether the claim was arguable, whether it was brought in time, whether exceptional circumstances justified judicial review of the County Court decision, whether Network Rail was the proper defendant, and whether the costs order should stand.

1. Permission refused. The renewed application was both out of time and unarguable. The claim also named the wrong defendant, since the impugned decision was made by the County Court rather than Network Rail.
2. The scope for judicial review of County Court decisions is very narrow and restricted to exceptional circumstances. A real prospect that a claimant was denied a fair hearing can amount to an exceptional circumstance, but the claimant still must establish an arguable ground with a realistic prospect of success. The court applied that approach to the authorities including [2024] EWCA Civ 94, [2002] EWCA Civ 1738, [2003] EWCA Civ 183 and [2007] EWCA Civ 1132.
3. The judicial review claim was filed almost seven months after the challenged decision. The claimant had not sought an extension and had shown no good reason for the delay. Under [2018] UKSC 12, being unrepresented did not generally justify a lower standard of compliance with procedural rules. The claimant was experienced in litigation and the applicable requirements were neither inaccessible nor obscure.
4. The transcript-related complaint did not disclose jurisdictional error or a procedural irregularity amounting to denial of a fair hearing. The unless order had a proper purpose and gave the claimant an opportunity to correct the problem. She did not take adequate steps to obtain a further transcript, seek reconsideration or appeal. Judicial review was a remedy of last resort, and the underlying appeal had already been considered to have no real prospect of success.
5. The claimant’s persistent procedural non-compliance caused substantial use of court resources. Consistently with the concern about procedural rigour identified in [2019] EWCA Civ 2064, exceptional circumstances justified departing from the usual position on costs at a renewed permission hearing. The earlier costs order of £1,406 was upheld. The defendant was awarded £5,250 plus VAT for the substantive hearing after a one-third reduction of its schedule.

• Central London County Court: The personal injury claim was struck out following non-compliance with unless orders. The claimant’s application and subsequent appeal steps were unsuccessful, and the appeal was ultimately struck out for failure to provide the required hearing transcript.
• Administrative Court: Permission for judicial review was refused on paper. The renewed application was dismissed by Mr Justice Sweeting, who upheld the earlier costs order and awarded further costs.