The Rev Mx Benjamin-Elijah Cakebread-Snow, R (on the application of) v The County Court at Durham

A County Court office has no general discretion to refuse to issue a claim and no general legal duty to provide same-day issue. It may conduct a threshold compliance check, consult a judge under CPR 3.2, and await directions where the material tendered raises a genuine question about what constitutes the claim. Practice Direction 3A, paragraph 2.1 does not require issue before consultation where the concern is compliance with rules or orders rather than the merits or abuse grounds in CPR 3.4(2)(a) or (b). A judge’s order concerning issue is a judicial act. Judicial review is confined to truly exceptional cases involving frustration or corruption of the judicial process. A decision that a voluminous composite bundle is not itself issuable, while leaving an identifiable Form N1 and particulars capable of issue, does not meet that threshold.

The claimant attended Durham County Court with a Form N1, particulars of claim and extensive additional material. The Court Office did not issue the papers immediately but referred them to a judge. District Judge Richardson directed that the 583-page bundle be returned for editing and resubmission. District Judge Hambler later set that order aside, directed amendments and contemplated issue and service of the amended claim, but the claim remained unissued.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Court Office’s conduct and the judges’ decisions, arguing that issue was mandatory once the claim was filed and that the judges had acted ultra vires. The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal but granted permission for the substantive judicial review to be determined by the Administrative Court. The central questions were whether the Court Office acted unlawfully and whether the County Court judges’ decisions were amenable to judicial review.

1. Disposition. The claim for judicial review was dismissed. The Court Office had not acted unlawfully, and the judges’ decisions were not amenable to judicial review.
2. Court Office. There is no general discretion to refuse to issue a claim and no general same-day duty to issue. The Court Office must nevertheless perform a threshold compliance function. It may determine whether the material tendered is recognisable as a claim in issuable form and may reject material which cannot properly be described as a claim. It is not required to process voluminous material instantaneously where a genuine form question arises.
3. Consulting a judge. The Civil Procedure Rules permit a court officer to consult a judge before taking a step in issuing a claim, including addressing a form-compliance doubt. Practice Direction 3A, paragraph 2.1 is directed to claims which may fall within CPR 3.4(2)(a) or (b). It requires issue before consultation in the ordinary case where the concern is the merits, abuse or obstruction of proceedings. It does not govern compliance questions arising under rules or orders, and does not remove the officer’s freedom to consult a judge before issue.
4. Two-stage form inquiry. Where a composite bundle contains substantial superfluous or legally distinct material, the court must consider whether the bundle is itself an issuable claim and, if not, whether it nevertheless contains an identifiable claim capable of being issued separately. The judges were entitled to conclude that the 583-page bundle was not, as an aggregate, a claim issuable in that form. District Judge Hambler’s order nevertheless disclosed no compliance objection to the Form N1 and particulars of claim, and contemplated their issue after the requested amendments.
5. Judicial review of County Court orders. A formal order made by a County Court judge is a judicial act, whatever its content. The applicable threshold is the exceptional test in R (Strickson) v Preston County Court [2007] EWCA Civ 1132: judicial review is confined to cases where the judicial process itself has been frustrated or corrupted, including truly exceptional jurisdictional error, substantial denial of a fair hearing, or comparable failure to perform an unequivocal judicial duty. An ordinary error, even an extreme error of law or fact, remains for appeal.
6. The Court Office was entitled to treat the judges’ orders as binding. The judgment did not determine the limitation issue or the merits of the underlying claim. On the analysis adopted, the claimant remained entitled to ask the County Court for an immediate direction to issue the Form N1 and particulars of claim as originally tendered.

1. Court of Appeal: Lewison LJ refused permission to appeal but granted permission for the substantive judicial review claim to be determined by the Administrative Court.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): The claim for judicial review was dismissed. The Court rejected the challenge to the Court Office and held that the County Court judges’ decisions were not amenable to judicial review: [2026] EWHC 1758 (Admin) .