Kevin Gregory v Thames Magistrates Court

An appeal by way of case stated cannot proceed unless the magistrates have stated a case for the High Court’s opinion. Where magistrates refuse to state a case, the appropriate challenge is ordinarily judicial review under section 111(6) of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980.

The Administrative Court has inherent jurisdiction to convert a procedurally mischaracterised appeal into a judicial review claim. The discretion may properly be exercised where the claim was filed in time, the error was technical, and refusing conversion would unjustly prevent the claim from being considered. Conversion is inappropriate where the lower decision lacks the findings needed to determine the substantive challenge directly.

The appellant challenged decisions of Thames Magistrates Court concerning council tax liability orders against his late father’s estate. The magistrates refused to state a case under section 111(5) of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980.

The appellant nevertheless issued an appeal by way of case stated. Murray J struck it out for want of jurisdiction, and subsequent applications to set aside that order were made. The appellant later sought to convert the proceedings into a judicial review claim. The central issues were whether the Court had power to convert the claim, whether conversion was appropriate after the delay, and whether the lower court’s reasons enabled the substantive challenge to be determined.

1. Jurisdiction and correct procedure. The Court had no jurisdiction to determine an appeal by way of case stated because Thames Magistrates Court had refused to state a case. Section 111(6) of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 provides the route of judicial review, including an application for mandamus requiring the justices to state a case.
2. Power to convert. The Court had inherent jurisdiction to order that the appeal stand as a claim for judicial review. The procedural error was analogous to the technical error considered in Hannigan v Hannigan [2000] 2 FCR 650. The appellant had pursued the case-stated procedure within its time limit and filed the notice within the period applicable to that procedure. Treating the notice as a judicial review claim therefore avoided unjustly shutting out the claim because of a technical mistake.
3. Exercise of discretion. Although there had been extraordinary delay, the filing date meant that the claim would have been commenced in time if it had originally been issued as judicial review. The competing submissions disclosed substantial factual and legal disputes, including disputes concerning standing, notice of the standing issue, the Authority to Act, and whether the executors should have been joined. New evidence required proper refinement and verification. It was therefore premature to conclude that the claim was hopeless or to refuse conversion.
4. Limits of direct judicial review. The approach identified in Sunworld Ltd v Hammersmith & Fulham LBC [2000] 1 WLR 2102, permitting direct judicial review where the lower court’s reasons contain all necessary findings and clearly raise the point of law, was not appropriate. The magistrates’ decision did not contain the findings necessary to resolve the issues now raised.
5. The order striking out the appeal was set aside. The appeal by way of case stated was ordered to stand as a claim for judicial review of the refusal to state a case. The appellant was directed to amend and serve a statement of facts and grounds and file verified evidence. The interested party was directed to file an acknowledgment of service, summary grounds and any further evidence. The application for permission was to be considered on the papers.

• Thames Magistrates Court: refused to state a case under section 111(5) of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980.
• High Court: Murray J struck out the case-stated appeal for want of jurisdiction. Foster J directed an oral hearing, and Lavender J dismissed and certified as totally without merit an application concerning signature of the refusal notice.
• Administrative Court: set aside Murray J’s order and directed that the proceedings stand as a claim for judicial review.