Sergio Graft, R (on the application of) v Willesden County Court

At the permission stage, judicial review of a county court decision requires an arguable want of jurisdiction or a procedural irregularity amounting to denial of a fair hearing, subject also to the availability of an alternative remedy. The duty to make reasonable adjustments is anticipatory, but a litigant must still explain why the particular adjustment is needed for effective participation in the relevant hearing. A mental health condition does not automatically require an intermediary or interpreter. The court should consider the full range of proportionate measures, including explanations, pauses, breaks and additional time. An adjourned hearing may remain an effective alternative remedy where the adjustment application can be decided then and further directions made if justified.

The claimant sought judicial review of a Willesden County Court order in an underlying clinical negligence claim. The order adjourned four applications, including a request for an intermediary and a Belarusian interpreter, after the claimant attended the court building but declined to enter without the requested assistance. A Deputy High Court Judge refused permission on the papers. The claimant renewed the application and sought to amend his grounds to challenge a later order adjourning the county court hearing. The central issues were whether the county court proceedings involved a procedural irregularity amounting to denial of a fair hearing, whether the requested adjustments were legally required, and whether the adjourned hearing supplied an adequate alternative remedy.

Disposition. Permission to amend the judicial review grounds was refused. The renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review was also refused. A transcript was directed to be provided at public expense.

1. Proposed amendment. The proposed challenge to the later county court order was unarguable. That order granted the adjournment the claimant had sought. The judge therefore did not need to hear further from him before making it. Any inaccurate recital that the claimant had been heard was inadvertent and had no material effect on the substance of the order.
2. Judicial review threshold. Applying the approach identified by the Court of Appeal in R (on the application of Sivasubramaniam) v Wandsworth County Court [2002] EWCA Civ 1738, the claimant had to show an arguable want of jurisdiction or a procedural irregularity amounting to denial of a fair hearing. The court adopted that approach despite uncertainty about whether permission to appeal had been sought.
3. Reasonable adjustments. The anticipatory duty under the Equality Act 2010, as explained in Paulley v FirstGroup plc [2017] UKSC 4, did not remove the need to establish why a particular adjustment was required. The ETBB, the Civil Justice Council material and Practice Direction 1A did not mandate an intermediary or interpreter merely because a litigant had mental health difficulties. The court had to consider the condition, the hearing and the range of proportionate measures available.
4. Application. The evidence did not explain how the claimant’s conditions affected participation, why an intermediary or interpreter was required, or the extent of any hearing impairment or language difficulty. The proposed adjustments were therefore not legally mandated. Other measures, including pauses, breaks, explanations, additional time and assistance with documents, were available.
5. Alternative remedy. The adjourned county court hearing remained an effective alternative remedy because the adjustment application could be considered at its outset. If the claimant later established a proper case for an intermediary or interpreter, the county court could consider a further adjournment.

• Willesden County Court: The claimant’s four applications in the underlying proceedings were adjourned, including his application concerning an intermediary and interpreter.
• High Court (permission on the papers): On 1 July 2026, a Deputy High Court Judge refused permission to apply for judicial review and refused permission to amend the grounds.
• High Court (Administrative Court): On renewal, Mrs Justice Heather Williams refused permission to amend and refused permission to apply for judicial review.