PG, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Ealing & Ors [2002] EWHC 250 (Admin) (28th February, 2002)

PG, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Ealing & Ors [2002] EWHC 250 (Admin) (28th February, 2002)

The Administrative Court retains the power to direct oral evidence and cross-examination in judicial review proceedings, notwithstanding CPR 54.16(1), due to inherent jurisdiction and powers under CPR 32.1 and CPR 3.1(2)(m), and to comply with Article 6 of the Convention when justice so requires.

Citation
[2002] EWHC 250 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: PG; First Defendant: London Borough of Ealing; Second Defendant: Ealing Hospital Managers; Third Defendant: Jonathan Scott
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Substantive Hearing on Power to Direct Oral Evidence and Cross Examination
Outcome
Existing orders for cross-examination upheld; court confirms power to direct oral evidence and cross-examination in judicial review.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Cross Examination, Court Powers Under CPR, Mental Health Act Detention
Administrative Law Mental Health Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Cross Examination Court Powers Under CPR Mental Health Act Detention

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PG

Claimant

London Borough of Ealing

First Defendant

Ealing Hospital Managers

Second Defendant

Jonathan Scott

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Substantive Hearing on Power to Direct Oral Evidence and Cross Examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Administrative Court retain power to direct oral evidence and cross-examination in judicial review proceedings under CPR Part 54?

Ratio Decidendi

The Administrative Court retains the power to direct oral evidence and cross-examination in judicial review proceedings, notwithstanding CPR 54.16(1), due to inherent jurisdiction and powers under CPR 32.1 and CPR 3.1(2)(m), and to comply with Article 6 of the Convention when justice so requires.

Court Disposition

Existing orders for cross-examination upheld; court confirms power to direct oral evidence and cross-examination in judicial review.

Orders

  • Existing orders for cross-examination remain in force.
  • Court confirms its power to direct oral evidence and cross-examination in appropriate judicial review cases.