Stephen Sims, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Hackney

Permission for judicial review should ordinarily be refused where the claim is academic. The discretion to determine an academic public-law issue is exceptional and requires a good reason in the public interest. The example identified in Salem is a discrete point of statutory construction, not dependent on detailed facts, with many similar cases existing or anticipated. A continuing relationship or the possibility that the issue may recur does not by itself satisfy that test. Where the issues are highly fact-sensitive, no similar cases are identified, and the claimant has obtained the practical relief sought, the claim should not proceed. Claims involving disputed facts and damages may properly be refused on judicial-review grounds where an adequate alternative remedy exists in the County Court.

The claimant, a secure tenant of the defendant local authority, sought judicial review following the breakdown of the communal lift serving his flat. He alleged failures to follow and publish decant policies, breaches of the Care Act 2014 and the public sector equality duty, and discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. The lift was repaired after the claim was issued, and the claimant accepted that some grounds had become academic. The remaining issues were whether permission should be granted on the policy and equality-duty grounds, whether the discrimination claims should proceed in judicial review, and whether the claim should be transferred to the County Court.

1. Permission refused. Grounds 1 and 3 were academic. The governing principle, drawn from Salem and endorsed in Heathrow Hub, is that academic or hypothetical public-law issues should not be determined except in exceptional circumstances where there is good reason in the public interest.
2. The circumstances did not justify an exception. There were no similar cases, and the challenges to the lift-breakdown policy and the public sector equality duty required a fact-sensitive assessment. The claimant had received all the practical relief sought. The possibility of a future lift breakdown and the continuing relationship between the parties did not make the issues sufficiently live.
3. R (oao L, M and P) v Devon County Council did not require a different result. It treated the Salem test as the rigorous filter for academic claims and did not establish that a claim remained live merely because the issue might recur in a future year.
4. Grounds 5 and 6 were refused in judicial review because the County Court was the more appropriate forum. It could hear evidence, resolve factual disputes and assess damages, and the claimant had an adequate right to pursue those claims there.
5. The renewed application for permission was dismissed. The Equality Act 2010 claim was transferred to the County Court under section 40(2) of the County Courts Act 1984. There was no order as to costs, save that costs relating to the Equality Act 2010 claim were reserved to the County Court.