Clegg v Secretary Of State For Trade & Industry & Ors [2001] EWHC Admin 394 (11th April, 2001)

Clegg v Secretary Of State For Trade & Industry & Ors [2001] EWHC Admin 394 (11th April, 2001)

The Inspectors' failure to respond to a solicitor's letter was a procedural defect but did not amount to unfairness or a breach of natural justice sufficient to warrant judicial review relief. Mr Clegg had ample opportunity to address the criticisms, and no substantive injustice was demonstrated. Relief is only available in exceptional circumstances, which were not present here.

Citation
[2001] EWHC Admin 394
Parties
Claimant: John Michael Clegg; First Defendant: The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Second Defendant: Christopher Konstantine Barrington Mayhew; Third Defendant: Anthony Harry Seton Robertshaw
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Natural Justice, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review of Investigatory Reports, Companies Act Investigations
Administrative Law Company Law Natural Justice Procedural Fairness Judicial Review of Investigatory Reports Companies Act Investigations

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

Parties

John Michael Clegg

Claimant

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

First Defendant

Christopher Konstantine Barrington Mayhew

Second Defendant

Anthony Harry Seton Robertshaw

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspectors acted unfairly towards Mr Clegg in the conduct of their investigation and report under section 442 of the Companies Act 1985
  2. 2 Whether the requirements of natural justice were breached in the process leading to the report's completion and publication
  3. 3 Whether any relief (quashing order, declaration) should be granted for alleged procedural unfairness

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspectors' failure to respond to a solicitor's letter was a procedural defect but did not amount to unfairness or a breach of natural justice sufficient to warrant judicial review relief. Mr Clegg had ample opportunity to address the criticisms, and no substantive injustice was demonstrated. Relief is only available in exceptional circumstances, which were not present here.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Time for filing application extended
  • Leave to seek relief granted due to procedural defect