R v Department of Transport and Another, ex parte Presvac Engineering Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 June 1991 |
| Date | 25 June 1991 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Before Lord Justice Purchas, Lord Justice Butler-Sloss and Lord Justice McCowan
Court of Appeal
Judicial review - leave to apply - right to be heard - trade competitor
A trade competitor had the right to be heard on an application for leave to apply for judicial review of a decision benefiting the products of a rival, regardless of whether bias or discrimination was involved, those being matters more properly dealt with on the hearing of the application itself.
The Court of Appeal so stated in dismissing an appeal by Presvac Engineering Ltd against the refusal by the Queen's Bench Divisional Court (The Times April 4, 1989) to grant judicial review of a decision of the Department of Transport to grant a certificate in respect of the testing of three marine valves, manufactured by Wilson-Walton International (UK) Ltd, under regulation 12(7) of the Merchant Shipping (Cargo Ship Construction and Survey) Regulations (SI 1984 No 1217), on the ground, inter alia, that the necessary tests had not been carried out.
Mr Terence Cullen, QC and Mr Lionel Persey for Presvac; Mr Julian Flaux for the Department of Transport; Mr David Holgate for Wilson-Walton.
LORD JUSTICE PURCHAS said that Presvac manufactured similar valves to those certified.
In dealing with the question of locus standi the Divisional Court had considered the subjective effect upon the applicants of the decision rather than the relationship between the applicants an the subject matter of the decision under attack.
His Lordship had no doubt that to consider whether there had been unfair discrimination against the applicants was a relevant, if not important, aspect when it came to the exercising of the court's discretion whether to grant relief.
However, he could not follow the argument that it also touched on the status of the applicants as persons having a sufficient interest to have the merits of the alleged wrongful exercise of power examined by judicial review.
Bearing in mind that that decision was normally taken at the ex parte application stage without detailed examination in depth, it seemed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Axis Intl v Civil Aviation Auth
... ... 490 , applied. (9) R. v. Transport Dept., ex p.Presvac Engr. Ltd. , [1992] 4 Admin ... the court simply to prefer the views of another expert over those of the expert decision-maker ... ...
-
DYC Fishing Ltd v The Minister of Agriculture, Aquaculture Jamaica Ltd
...the applicant has a sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates." 29 In the case of R.V. Department of Transport and another Ex parte Presvac Engineering Ltd. (1992) 4 Admin. 1 L.R. 121 the Times July 110, 1991, the Court of Appeal decided that Presvac had locus stand......
-
The King (on the application of British Gas Trading Ltd) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero
...made and not the date when the claimant was informed about it, citing R v Department of Transport, ex parte Presvac Engineering Ltd (1992) 4 Admin LR 121. It is emphasised, at para. 6.4.1, that, even if the claim has been commenced within 3 months from the date of the conduct challenged, it......
-
R (Crompton) v Police and Crime Commissioner for South Yorkshire
...decision or from the date when the claimant considered that they had adequate information to bring the claim" (see R v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Presvac [1992] 4 Admin LR 121 at 133). 104 The second decision under challenge was that of the 4 July to continue with the proposa......