Judicial review succeeded on merits — Relief refused for undue delay — Time-limit in Ord 53 — Discretion in Supreme Court Act 1981 — Apparent inconsistency between two provisions — Whether detriment to good administration — Discretion to refuse relief upheld
The appellants, the owners of a dairy farm, applied for judicial review of a decision of the Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal in relation to a claim for a quota under the exceptional hardship provisions of the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1984. The appellants had purchased a farm shortly before quotas were introduced, and the tribunal had granted a quota based on the evidence of fewer cows than the appellants had ultimately hoped to milk. Popplewell J (November 25 1988) held that the tribunal had misconstrued the regulations and that it should have considered the number of cows the appellants eventually hoped to milk on the farm and not the outcome as at March 31 1985.
However, Popplewell J refused to give effective relief because of undue delay on the part of the appellants in making their application. The appellants did not learn of the possibility of seeking judicial review until some two years after the tribunal’s decision. The appellants appealed.
Ord 53, r 4(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court provides: “An application for leave to apply for judicial review shall be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when grounds for the application first arose unless the Court considers there is good reason for extending the period …”, whereas section 31(6) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 provides: “Where the High Court considers that there has been undue delay in making an application for judicial review, the court may refuse to grant … leave … or … relief … if it considers that the granting of the relief sought would be likely to cause substantial hardship to, or substantially prejudice the rights of, any person or would be detrimental to good administration”.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
It is difficult to reconcile the absolute requirement in Ord 53, r 4(1), with the more relaxed test in section 31(6). However, the present court, in R v Stratford-on-Avon District Council, ex parte Jackson [1985] 1 WLR 1319, evolved a solution whereby if there has been undue delay, the judge may grant an extension to the three-month time-limit in granting leave upon the ex parte application if the applicant shows good reason. Even if that extension is granted, the judge may either refuse leave or, at the substantive hearing, refuse relief, on any of the grounds in section 31(6) of the 1981 Act.
In the present case the respondents had adduced evidence that if relief were granted a large number of applications for quota would have to be reopened and this would reduce existing quotas to other farmers. It followed that the granting of effective relief would be detrimental to good administration.
Richard Dawson (instructed by Dawson & Co) appeared for the appellants; and George Pulman QC (instructed by the Solicitor to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) appeared for the respondents.
