R (on the application of Kate Thomas) v Judicial Appointments Commission

R (on the application of Kate Thomas) v Judicial Appointments Commission

Permission to appeal is granted on the grounds of fairness, Article 8, and interpretation of Regulation 30, as these raise arguable issues warranting a full hearing. Permission to add an Article 14 discrimination ground is refused as unarguable and not analogous.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Kate Thomas; Defendant/respondent: Judicial Appointments Commission
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission to Appeal Refusal of Permission for Judicial Review
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted in part; permission to amend to add Article 14 ground refused.
Legal Topics
Fairness in Judicial Appointments, Confidentiality in Statutory Consultation, Interpretation of Regulation 30 Judicial Appointment Regulations 2013/2192, Article 8 ECHR, Article 14 ECHR
Administrative Law Judicial Review Constitutional Law Fairness in Judicial Appointments Confidentiality in Statutory Consultation Interpretation of Regulation 30 Judicial Appointment Regulations 2013/2192 Article 8 ECHR Article 14 ECHR

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kate Thomas

Claimant/appellant

Judicial Appointments Commission

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission to Appeal Refusal of Permission for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the JAC's process breached fairness by not disclosing adverse consultation comments to the candidate
  2. 2 Whether the JAC's process infringed Article 8 ECHR
  3. 3 Proper interpretation of Regulation 30 of the Judicial Appointment Regulations 2013/2192 regarding statutory consultation

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal is granted on the grounds of fairness, Article 8, and interpretation of Regulation 30, as these raise arguable issues warranting a full hearing. Permission to add an Article 14 discrimination ground is refused as unarguable and not analogous.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted in part; permission to amend to add Article 14 ground refused.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted on grounds of fairness, Article 8, and Regulation 30.
  • Permission to amend to add Article 14 ground refused.