Rory Nash, R (on the application of) v Brighton County Court

The Administrative Court may exceptionally review county court proceedings where the judicial process has been frustrated or corrupted, including a substantial denial of a fair hearing or a failure to address a matter which the court was unequivocally required to determine. Judicial review is not an alternative appeal route and cannot reopen litigation merely because a party disagrees with the result. Where the county court has properly heard and determined the issues, challenges to legal or factual conclusions must ordinarily proceed by appeal. The exceptional jurisdiction was not engaged.

The claimant sought renewed permission to bring judicial review proceedings concerning possession proceedings in Brighton County Court. He challenged the possession order, later county court orders, and the refusal to extend time for an appeal. He alleged procedural unfairness, legal error and breaches of Articles 6, 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The possession order had been made after findings that there was a valid periodic tenancy and a valid section 21 notice. The claimant had pursued appeals within the county court, but that route was exhausted. The central issue was whether the alleged defects were sufficiently exceptional to permit the Administrative Court to reopen the county court litigation by judicial review.

1. Application refused. There were no exceptional circumstances capable of engaging the Administrative Court’s jurisdiction to reopen the county court proceedings.
2. The jurisdiction is rare and exceptional. It may arise where the judicial process has been frustrated or corrupted, including where a court embarks on an inquiry over which it has no power, fails altogether to inquire into or adjudicate a matter it was unequivocally required to address, substantially denies a fair hearing, acts in complete disregard of its duties, or declines to determine an important point of law where the public interest requires a decision. The court referred to R (Sivasubramaniam) v Wandsworth County Court [2003] 1 WLR 475 and R (Strickson) v Preston County Court [2007] EWCA Civ 1132.
3. The claimant’s arguments had been properly heard. The relatively short hearing did not establish procedural unfairness, and the judge was entitled to decide the case on the material then before the court.
4. The proper route for challenging the county court’s decision was appeal, not judicial review. That route had been pursued and exhausted. Judicial review could not be used to reopen a case simply because the claimant disagreed with the outcome or later advanced a differently formulated tenancy argument.
5. The county court’s procedural rules had been followed and its decisions were not irrational, unlawful, procedurally unfair or improper. It was unnecessary and inappropriate to address the claimant’s 13 detailed grounds.

The judgment describes earlier possession and appeal-related decisions in Brighton County Court, including orders made on 15 March, 8 July, 21 November and 25 November 2024, and 26 March 2025. The claimant’s county court appeal route was stated to be exhausted.