Guernsey Law Reports 2011-12 GLR Note 7
MAURICE v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF STATES OF ALDERNEY
ROYAL COURT (Collas, Deputy Bailiff): April 18th, 2011
Civil Procedure—abuse of process—control by court—dismissal without hearing
The appellant sought licences to import two limousines into Alderney, to be used for leisure and commercial purposes. The personal use licence application for the first car was refused by the respondent on the ground that it was too big for personal use on Alderney’s roads. The Court of Alderney dismissed the appellant’s application for judicial review of that decision. The respondent later issued a commercial import licence for the second car, which the appellant had obtained under a new application system; and the appellant then successfully reapplied for a licence for the first car on the commercial basis. Although the appellant had therefore in effect been granted what he had originally sought and the issue no longer had any substance (though there was a dispute as to costs), he nonetheless appealed against the Court of Alderney’s decision to dismiss the application for judicial review. The respondent applied to have the appeal dismissed without a hearing.
Held: (1) The appeal would be dismissed without a hearing on its merits. Although the court could exercise its discretion to hear an appeal which no longer involved a live issue, it also had a duty to manage its time and not to spend it on hearing hypothetical or academic appeals where little or nothing substantial would be achieved and there was no general public interest in doing so (R. v. Home Secy., ex p. Salem, [1999] A.C. 450, dicta of Lord Slynn applied). The possibility that the appellant might subsequently bring proceedings to recover the storage costs of the first car after its licence had originally been refused was not a sufficient reason to hear the present appeal.
(2) No order would be made as to costs. In cases such as this, when the substantive proceedings had already effectively been resolved without a trial, the court would apply the following principles when deciding what, if any, costs order to make:
(a) it had power to make a costs order if the substantive proceedings had been resolved without a trial but there was disagreement as to the costs;
(b) it would usually be irrelevant that the claimant was legally aided;
(c) the overriding objective was to do justice between the parties without unnecessarily spending time in court and increasing the costs;
(d) in some cases, it would be obvious which party would have won at a full trial but many cases would be less clear. How far the court would be prepared to look at the previously unresolved substantive issues would depend on the circumstances of the particular case, the costs at stake and the conduct of the parties;
(e) in the absence of a good reason to make any other order, no order would be made as to costs; and
(f) the court was to ensure that it did not discourage parties from settling judicial review proceedings, e.g. by a local authority making a concession at an early stage.
In this case, it was not obvious that the appellant would have succeeded at trial: the fact that he had eventually been granted an import licence was irrelevant, since the application process had been different the second time (R. (Boxall) v. Waltham Forest London B.C. (2001), 4 CCLR 258, dicta of Scott Baker, J. applied).
2011
Law Report
None
Guernsey Law Reports 2011-12 GLR Note 7