Thomas, R (On the Application Of) v Judicial Apppointments Commission [2025] EWCA Civ 912 (17 July 2025)

Thomas, R (On the Application Of) v Judicial Apppointments Commission [2025] EWCA Civ 912 (17 July 2025)

Regulation 30 does not prohibit statutory consultees from seeking input from sub-consultees; such sub-consultation is lawful under section 88(1) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. The JAC's reliance on negative consultation material from sub-consultees was not unlawful. However, the JAC's policy of never disclosing negative material to candidates except in exceptional circumstances is an inappropriate fetter on its discretion; the JAC must consider, in each case, how to proceed among available options. The JAC ought, in fairness, to inform candidates in advance that comments will be sought from both consultees and sub-consultees. The court is not in a position to determine whether the...

Citation
[2025] EWCA Civ 912
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Katie Thomas; Defendant/respondent: Judicial Appointments Commission; Intervener: 4A Law Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal (substantive Determination)
Outcome
Partially allowed (declarations granted, but decision not set aside)
Legal Topics
Judicial Appointments, Procedural Fairness, Statutory Interpretation, Confidentiality, Human Rights
Public Law Administrative Law Employment Law Judicial Appointments Procedural Fairness Statutory Interpretation Confidentiality Human Rights

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Katie Thomas

Claimant/appellant

Judicial Appointments Commission

Defendant/respondent

4A Law Limited

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal (substantive Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether regulation 30 of the Judicial Appointment Regulations 2013 prohibits statutory consultees from seeking input from sub-consultees
  2. 2 Whether the JAC's reliance on negative consultation material from sub-consultees was unlawful or unfair
  3. 3 Whether the JAC's feedback and disclosure practices breached fairness or Article 8 ECHR rights

Ratio Decidendi

Regulation 30 does not prohibit statutory consultees from seeking input from sub-consultees; such sub-consultation is lawful under section 88(1) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. The JAC's reliance on negative consultation material from sub-consultees was not unlawful. However, the JAC's policy of never disclosing negative material to candidates except in exceptional circumstances is an inappropriate fetter on its discretion; the JAC must consider, in each case, how to proceed among available options. The JAC ought, in fairness, to inform candidates in advance that comments will be sought from both consultees and sub-consultees. The court is not in a position to determine whether the...

Court Disposition

Partially allowed (declarations granted, but decision not set aside)

Orders

  • Declarations that regulation 30 does not prohibit sub-consultation and that the JAC must consider, in each case, how to handle negative consultation material
  • Declaration that the JAC ought to inform candidates in advance about sub-consultation