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

Judicial review of a County Court refusal of permission to appeal is available only exceptionally, where the judicial process itself has been frustrated or corrupted. Examples include an enquiry undertaken without jurisdiction, a complete failure to adjudicate a matter requiring determination, and substantial denial of a fair hearing. Disagreement with the merits does not meet that threshold. An unopposed judicial review claim does not attract permission or relief automatically. A complaint about hearing notice does not invalidate a refusal where the litigant received a fair hearing and the notification circumstances had no bearing on the decision. There is no power under section 69 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to order a jury trial in the Administrative Court.

The claimant, a musician who described himself as neurodivergent, had occupied a property initially let to him and another tenant under a six-month tenancy. After the other tenant left, he remained with the landlord's consent and paid rent without a further written agreement. The landlord subsequently brought accelerated possession proceedings under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988. The claimant disputed the nature of the tenancy and the validity of the notice.

A deputy district judge made a possession order. A circuit judge dismissed the claimant's late appeal on paper as out of time and totally without merit, and subsequently refused to set aside that order. Following eviction, the claimant sought permission to apply for judicial review of the refusal to reconsider. Sheldon J refused permission on paper. Stacey J refused the renewed application after an oral hearing.

The claimant sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. He alleged defective notification of the hearing before Stacey J, maintained that the absence of opposition required permission or relief, and alleged a systemic conflict in judges reviewing other judges' conduct. He also sought a jury trial under section 69 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The central issue was whether any ground disclosed an arguable basis for challenging the refusal of judicial review permission.

Permission to appeal refused unanimously. The application was certified as totally without merit. Peter Jackson LJ gave the judgment, with which Elisabeth Laing LJ and Sir Colin Birss agreed.

1. Judicial review of a County Court refusal of permission to appeal was confined to very rare cases. The governing concern was whether the judicial process itself had been frustrated or corrupted. Examples included undertaking an enquiry wholly beyond the court's powers, completely failing to adjudicate a matter which it was unequivocally obliged to address, and substantially denying a fair hearing. Complete disregard of judicial duties might also qualify. The exceptional jurisdiction did not provide another merits appeal: R(Sivasubramaniam) v Wandsworth County Court [2002] EWCA Civ 1738; R (Strickson) v Preston County Court [2007] EWCA Civ 1132 (paras 22–24).

2. The Administrative Court's refusal could be disturbed only if it was wrong or so procedurally irregular as to be unjust. Both judges had carefully considered the application. The County Court had exercised its jurisdiction coherently, and the claimant's failure resulted from the absence of an arguable legal case rather than a defect in the judicial process. The refusal of judicial review permission was plainly right (para 24).

3. The circumstances in which the claimant learned of the renewed hearing did not affect its outcome. The transcript established that he had received more than a fair hearing. His complaint about notification therefore provided no basis for treating the hearing or resulting order as ineffective (para 26).

4. The respondent court's non-participation did not require permission or relief to be granted. Courts and tribunals generally were not expected to participate when named as defendants. The supposed passage supporting automatic relief was absent from the Administrative Court Guide. The court would not uphold legally unsound arguments merely because they were unopposed. R v Talpada [2018] EWCA Civ 841 stated that unchallenged evidence need not be accepted automatically (paras 27–28).

5. The allegation that the High Court could not fairly review County Court proceedings was unarguable. Section 69 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 conferred no power to order a jury trial in the Administrative Court. Even if such a power existed, it would not have been exercised here (para 29).

6. An adjournment to read further documents was refused because the court had ample material and no omission had been identified. Fair allocation of court resources also weighed against further delay. None of the appeal grounds offered any prospect of success, and there was no compelling reason for an appeal. The court warned that continued unmeritorious applications would lead to a civil restraint order (paras 21, 30).

• Court of Appeal: On 14 July 2026, refused permission to appeal from Stacey J's refusal of judicial review permission and certified the application as totally without merit: [2026] EWCA Civ 914 .
• High Court, Administrative Court: On 6 November 2025, Stacey J refused the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review after an oral hearing.
• High Court, Administrative Court: On 16 September 2025, Sheldon J refused judicial review permission on paper.
• Brighton County Court: On 26 March 2025, HHJ Simpkiss refused to set aside his earlier order and excluded oral reconsideration.
• Brighton County Court: On 21 November 2024, HHJ Simpkiss dismissed the appeal on paper as out of time and totally without merit.
• Brighton County Court: On 15 March 2024, DDJ Slack made a possession order following a claim under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988.