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

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

Regulation 30 does not prohibit sub-consultation; section 88(1) provides statutory basis for the JAC's consultation process; section 139(5) does not preclude disclosure of negative material to candidates where necessary under section 139(4); JAC's practice of only considering disclosure in exceptional circumstances is an unlawful fetter on discretion; JAC must inform candidates in advance about sub-consultation; however, the claimant's application fails to demonstrate unfairness or unlawfulness sufficient to overturn the selection decision.

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 From High Court, Substantive Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed in part; declarations granted; selection decision not quashed.
Legal Topics
Judicial Appointments, Statutory Consultation, Fairness in Administrative Decision Making, Confidentiality, Article 8 ECHR
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Employment Law Human Rights Judicial Appointments Statutory Consultation Fairness in Administrative Decision Making Confidentiality +1 more

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Katie Thomas

Claimant/appellant

Judicial Appointments Commission

Defendant/respondent

4A Law Limited

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court, Substantive Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether regulation 30 prohibits sub-consultation in statutory consultation for judicial appointments
  2. 2 Lawfulness of reliance on sub-consultee comments
  3. 3 Proper construction of section 139 confidentiality provisions

Ratio Decidendi

Regulation 30 does not prohibit sub-consultation; section 88(1) provides statutory basis for the JAC's consultation process; section 139(5) does not preclude disclosure of negative material to candidates where necessary under section 139(4); JAC's practice of only considering disclosure in exceptional circumstances is an unlawful fetter on discretion; JAC must inform candidates in advance about sub-consultation; however, the claimant's application fails to demonstrate unfairness or unlawfulness sufficient to overturn the selection decision.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; declarations granted; selection decision not quashed.

Orders

  • Declaration that section 139(5) does not preclude disclosure where section 139(4) applies.
  • Declaration that JAC's practice of only considering disclosure in exceptional circumstances is an unlawful fetter on discretion.