Judicial Review

[BACK OF THE NET]

Hi and I hope someone can help me.

I have paid the initial fee and provided the relevant paperwork as to seek a judicial review with the High Court, Administrative Court, but it has been returned because it is not within the jurisdiction as to consider.

That court is within the geographical region for the application to be made, so I am slightly confused.

[efpom]

You need to provide details of your application for judicial review.

[EXC]

Hi and I hope someone can help me.

I have paid the initial fee and provided the relevant paperwork as to seek a judicial review with the High Court, Administrative Court, but it has been returned because it is not within the jurisdiction as to consider.

That court is within the geographical region for the application to be made, so I am slightly confused.

What it probably means by jurisdiction is not geographical but whether the authority and subject of your application is challengeable by way of Judicial Review, as only decisions made by certain public bodies can be. If not the court won't have jurisdiction to hear your case.

Do you realise how expensive Judicial Review proceedings can be? Additionally if you lose you'll likely be liable for the other side's costs.

[pt2537]

Hi and I hope someone can help me.

I have paid the initial fee and provided the relevant paperwork as to seek a judicial review with the High Court, Administrative Court, but it has been returned because it is not within the jurisdiction as to consider.

That court is within the geographical region for the application to be made, so I am slightly confused.

Agree with the above comments, would need ot know what the review was about first before any guidance could be given

[BACK OF THE NET]

You need to provide details of your application for judicial review.

Hi, All the details and evidence of the case were sent to the Court, or am I reading this wrong, and you want me to provide the forum with those deatails, kindly advice.

[BACK OF THE NET]

What it probably means by jurisdiction is not geographical but whether the authority and subject of your application is challengeable by way of Judicial Review, as only decisions made by certain public bodies can be. If not the court won't have jurisdiction to hear your case.

Do you realise how expensive Judicial Review proceedings can be? Additionally if you lose you'll likely be liable for the other side's costs.

The case was issued and subsequently dealt with within the High Court London, QBD, if challenging a decision and asking for an emergency judicial review that has been made in that Court, surely such decision would meet the criteria as to be considered for a judicial review to be considered as there were a number of procedures and rules breached, and in particular by Court employees.

[EXC]

Court decisions aren't subject to Judicial Review. The mechanism for challenging a court judgment is appealing it.

[BACK OF THE NET]

Agree with the above comments, would need ot know what the review was about first before any guidance could be given

Thanks for your reply.

The case and why I asked for a judicial review is because a claim was made against a firm of solicitors who and a for a period of two years made false legal representation on my behalf, and it was established their actions were fraudulent.

I followed the correct procedures and issued against the firm of solicitors within the High Court.

The solicitors could not provide a defence to my claim and particulars of claim within the time allowed under CPR.

I made application to the Court for judgment in my favour of which I was entitled as to request summary judgment in default of the solicitors not providing a defence.

The Court failed and in its obligation to enter judgment in default which and I been legally advice would be deemed an abuse of process and in particular under the provisions and rules under the Civil Procedure Rules that have on this occasion been breached.

This is one of the reasons why I have asked for the case to be subject and duly considered by judicial review (emergency)

I hope this helps, kindly advice.

[EXC]

Thanks for your reply.

The case and why I asked for a judicial review is because a claim was made against a firm of solicitors who and a for a period of two years made false legal representation on my behalf, and it was established their actions were fraudulent.

I followed the correct procedures and issued against the firm of solicitors within the High Court.

The solicitors could not provide a defence to my claim and particulars of claim within the time allowed under CPR.

I made application to the Court for judgment in my favour of which I was entitled as to request summary judgment in default of the solicitors not providing a defence.

The Court failed and in its obligation to enter judgment in default which and I been legally advice would be deemed an abuse of process and in particular under the provisions and rules under the Civil Procedure Rules that have on this occasion been breached.

This is one of the reasons why I have asked for the case to be subject and duly considered by judicial review (emergency)

I hope this helps, kindly advice.

Ok so you want to challenge a procedural decision by the court. Maybe pt2537 could advise but can you tell us what reason the court gave you for not making a judgment by default?

[BACK OF THE NET]

Thanks for that,

The Court have said that they did not enter judgment in default because the solicitors claimed they did not recieve the particulars of claim, which i disputed as i had sent the poc by guaranteed next day delivery and provided the court with proof of this by producing the signiture signed by the solicitors, provided by Royal Mail.

[BACK OF THE NET]

Thereafter the Court gave the Def another 14 to provide a defence!

[EXC]

Thereafter the Court gave the Def another 14 to provide a defence!

The court does have discretion to allow an extension. Have they filed a defence? Is the 14 days up yet?

[Amethyst]

Had you had a judgment by default been entered it seems likely that the defendants would simply have applied to set aside and prolonged things further.

Did the court order you re-serve the Particulars ? and did the defendants then file and serve their defence ? and what happened/is happening with the case ?

[efpom]

If I understand your writing, you issued a claim in the High Court.
The defendant failed to file a defence.
You applied for judgment in default.
Judgment in default was not granted.
You applied for judicial review of that decision.
The Administrative Court held it had no jurisdiction to carry out that review.

Is your claim in the High Court still ‘live’ or has a judgment of the High Court issued?
If the latter, what was the judgment?

[BACK OF THE NET]

The court does have discretion to allow an extension. Have they filed a defence? Is the 14 days up yet?

No they again failed to file a defence for a second time, this despite reassuring the Court that they would file a defence.