Shawn Perrie v Leeds Trinity University

Permission for judicial review should generally be refused where an adequate alternative remedy is available, particularly where the dispute requires factual findings and the claimant seeks damages or declaratory relief. Judicial review is also unsuitable for resolving heavily contested factual disputes. A claim concerning a historic decision may be academic where the claimant’s circumstances mean that a judgment would provide no practical assistance. Irrationality requires satisfaction of the high public law threshold applicable to that ground.

The claimant, a postgraduate student and elected officer of the Leeds Trinity Students’ Union, challenged the University’s decision to prevent him attending the Union’s annual general meeting. He relied on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, section 22(1) of the Education Act 1994, failure to take relevant considerations into account, and irrationality.

Permission had previously been refused on the papers by HHJ Saffman. The claimant renewed the application. By the hearing, he had been expelled from the University and had issued a County Court claim seeking damages under the Human Rights Act 1998. The central issues were whether the judicial review was arguable, whether it should proceed despite the alternative private law remedy, and whether the claim was academic.

1. Permission refused on all three grounds. The claim was entirely academic because the challenged events were historic, the claimant had since been expelled, and a judgment would provide no practical assistance to him in future.
2. Grounds 1 and 2 should be determined, if pursued, in the County Court. A private law claim was an adequate alternative remedy because it could resolve the contested factual issues, award damages, and declare whether Articles 10 and 11 had been breached.
3. The County Court could also consider the claimant’s argument under section 22(1) of the Education Act 1994, whether relied on as part of the Convention claims or as a free-standing claim. The section 22 issue concerned the University’s alleged failure to ensure that the Union operated fairly and democratically.
4. Judicial review was not the appropriate forum for resolving the heavily contested factual background concerning the interim sanctions, the Union’s complaints, and the security incident. Ground 2 was therefore part of the matters properly left to the County Court.
5. Ground 3 was not arguable. Given the information supplied to the University that the claimant was not permitted to attend the AGM, there was no realistic prospect of establishing irrationality under the high public law threshold.
6. The court would not have refused permission under section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. On the claimant’s case, absent the alleged unlawful conduct, he would have been permitted to enter the AGM. Permission was nevertheless refused for the other reasons given.

This was a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review. Permission had been refused on the papers by HHJ Saffman by order dated 12 September 2024, sent to the parties on 19 September 2024. Mrs Justice Hill reconsidered the application at an oral hearing and refused permission on all grounds.