Deutsch, R (On the Application Of) v Hackney

Deutsch, R (On the Application Of) v Hackney

A challenge to the authority of the maker of a designation order under section 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is a challenge to the validity of the order and must be made within six weeks under Part VI of Schedule 9; after that period, the order cannot be questioned in any legal proceedings, regardless of alleged lack of authority.

Parties
Claimant: The Queen on the Application of Deutsch; Defendant: LB Hackney
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Ouster Clauses, Delegated Authority, Traffic Regulation, Statutory Interpretation

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen on the Application of Deutsch

Claimant

LB Hackney

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

  1. 1 Whether the designation order was made by a duly authorised officer
  2. 2 Whether the ouster clause in Part VI of Schedule 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 bars the challenge
  3. 3 Whether procedural defects or lack of authority invalidate the order outside the statutory time limit

Ratio Decidendi

A challenge to the authority of the maker of a designation order under section 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is a challenge to the validity of the order and must be made within six weeks under Part VI of Schedule 9; after that period, the order cannot be questioned in any legal proceedings, regardless of alleged lack of authority.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Application for judicial review is refused, subject only to any further argument on Human Rights Act incompatibility as referenced in paragraph 8.