Mayo v F. & E. [1996] JLR 45 (06 March 1996)

There is no automatic right to discovery in judicial review proceedings against a Committee; the issue of discovery may be deferred until the applicant's standing is determined.

Citation: [1996] JLR 45
Parties: Applicant: Mayo; Respondent: F. & E.
Jurisdiction: Jersey
Judgment Date: 06 March 1996
Procedural Posture: Judicial Review / Interlocutory Application
Outcome: Application for discovery adjourned
Legal Topics: Judicial Review, Discovery, Locus Standi

Administrative Law Judicial Review Discovery Locus Standi

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

Parties

Mayo

Applicant

F. & E.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

1 Whether an application for judicial review gives an automatic right to discovery against a Committee
2 Whether the question of discovery should be adjourned if the applicant's locus standi is not yet challenged

Ratio Decidendi

There is no automatic right to discovery in judicial review proceedings against a Committee; the issue of discovery may be deferred until the applicant's standing is determined.

Court Disposition

Application for discovery adjourned

Orders

Question of discovery adjourned until applicant's locus standi is ascertained