Kelway, R (on the application of) v IPCC [2013] EWHC 1613 (Admin) (24 May 2013)

Kelway, R (on the application of) v IPCC [2013] EWHC 1613 (Admin) (24 May 2013)

There is no valid or perfected order dismissing the judicial review claims as of 25 October 2011; any such order was irregular, not approved by the judge, and not notified to the claimant. The claims remain live. There is no substantive reason to adjourn the proceedings based on alleged procedural irregularity or the need for legal advice. The court will set aside the irregular order and proceed to judgment on the applications.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 1613 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Dr Peter Kelway; Defendant: IPCC; Defendant: Newcastle Upon Tyne Combined Court; Defendant: Upper Tribunal
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission/adjournment Applications and Case Management
Outcome
Application for adjournment refused; irregular order set aside; judgment reserved on substantive applications.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Procedural Irregularity, Access to Justice, Civil Restraint Orders, Court Administration
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Procedural Irregularity Access to Justice Civil Restraint Orders Court Administration

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Peter Kelway

Claimant

IPCC

Defendant

Newcastle Upon Tyne Combined Court

Defendant

Upper Tribunal

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission/adjournment Applications and Case Management

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judicial review claims are live or have been dismissed by a prior order
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural irregularity in the handling of the draft and sealed orders
  3. 3 Whether an adjournment should be granted due to alleged irregularities and outstanding appeals

Ratio Decidendi

There is no valid or perfected order dismissing the judicial review claims as of 25 October 2011; any such order was irregular, not approved by the judge, and not notified to the claimant. The claims remain live. There is no substantive reason to adjourn the proceedings based on alleged procedural irregularity or the need for legal advice. The court will set aside the irregular order and proceed to judgment on the applications.

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment refused; irregular order set aside; judgment reserved on substantive applications.

Orders

  • The sealed order of 25 October 2011 is formally set aside under the slip rule.
  • The applications for adjournment are refused.