Lindridge v Chief Constable of Kent & Anor [2008] EWHC 2699 (Admin) (10 June 2008)

Lindridge v Chief Constable of Kent & Anor [2008] EWHC 2699 (Admin) (10 June 2008)

There was no identifiable decision suitable for judicial review, and the claimant's documents lacked coherence and focus. The County Court's order was not reviewable and had expired. The application disclosed no arguable claim for judicial review.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 2699 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Lindridge; First Defendant: Chief Constable of Kent; Second Defendant: Carlisle County Court
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission for Judicial Review
Outcome
Application for permission to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Restraint Orders, Police Investigation, Medical Records, Human Rights
Administrative Law Judicial Review Restraint Orders Police Investigation Medical Records 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lindridge

Claimant

Chief Constable of Kent

First Defendant

Carlisle County Court

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a judicially reviewable decision by the Chief Constable of Kent or Carlisle County Court
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's complaints can be addressed by judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

There was no identifiable decision suitable for judicial review, and the claimant's documents lacked coherence and focus. The County Court's order was not reviewable and had expired. The application disclosed no arguable claim for judicial review.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to apply for judicial review refused