R v Secretary of State for Education and Science, ex parte Avon County Council (no 2)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE GLIDEWELL,LORD JUSTICE TAYLOR,SIR GEORGE WALLER |
| Judgment Date | 15 May 1990 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1990] EWCA Civ J0515-9 |
| Docket Number | 90/0465 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 15 May 1990 |
[1990] EWCA Civ J0515-9
Lord Justice Glidewell
Lord Justice Taylor
Sir George Waller
90/0465
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MR. JUSTICE KENNEDY)
Royal Courts of Justice
MISS ELIZABETH APPLEBY Q.C. and MISS GENEVRA CAWS (instructed by Messrs Sharpe Pritchard, agents for Messrs. B. D. Smith & Co., Bristol) appeared for the Appellant.
MISS P. L. BAXENDALE (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Respondent.
On 9th April 1990 the appellant, Avon
County Council, which is the Education Authority for the County of Avon, applied for leave to move for judicial review of:
1. Three decisions contained in letters dated 30th March 1990 from the Secretary of State for Education and Science to
-
(i) the Director of Education of Avon County Council, rejecting proposals for the reorganisation of secondary education in Bath;
-
(ii) the Chairman of the Governors of St. Mark's C.E. Secondary School rejecting proposals for a significant change in its character;
-
(iii) the Chairman of the Governors of Beechen Cliff School approving its acquisition of grant-maintained status.
2. The Beechen Cliff School Grant Maintained Status Transitional Provisions Order made by the Secretary of State for Education and Science on 20th March 1990. The relief sought was expressed as:
-
(i) An order of certiorari to quash each of those decisions.
-
(ii) An order of certiorari to quash the Transitional Provisions Order.
-
(iii) A direction that the grant of leave to apply for judicial review should operate as a stay upon the implementation of the proposals for Beechen Cliff School to become grant maintained until determination of the application.
-
(iv) A direction that the hearing of the application be considered for expedition.
On 10th April 1990 Kennedy J. heard oral argument in support of the application. He decided to grant leave to move, and then heard argument on the County Council's application for a stay. He decided that he had no jurisdiction to grant a stay of the Secretary of State's decisions in the circumstances of this case.
The County Council immediately appealed to this court. We heard the appeal on 11th April 1990. Like Kennedy J., we considered first whether the court had jurisdiction to grant a stay of the Secretary of State's decision. We decided that the court has such jurisdiction.
However, when it then became clear to us that an early hearing of the substantive application could be arranged, we considered that a stay was unnecessary, and declined to grant a stay.
I now give my reasons for my conclusion that the court has power to grant a stay of the Secretary of State's decision.
Miss Appleby, for the County Council, submits that the power to grant a stay is expressly given in R.S.C. Order 53 Rule 3(10). This provides:
"Where leave to apply for judicial review is granted, then:
(a) if the relief sought is an order of prohibition or certiorari and the Court so directs, the grant shall operate as a stay of the proceedings to which the application relates until the determination of the application or until the Court otherwise orders;
(b) if any other relief is sought, the Court may at any time grant in the proceedings such interim relief as could be granted in an action begun by writ."
The primary relief sought is an order of certiorari. Miss Appleby submits that the phrase "a stay of the proceedings", though at first sight applicable to proceedings in a court, must have a wider application. Today, many applications for judicial review are for orders of certiorari to quash decisions of decision-making bodies other than courts, including government ministers, local authorities and other bodies whose decisions are susceptible to judicial review. Thus the phrase "a stay of the proceedings" in relation to such bodies must mean "a stay of the process by which the decision challenged has been reached, including the decision itself". Miss Baxendale, for the Secretary of State, argues that Miss Appleby's submissions give to the word "proceedings" a meaning it does not bear. The power in Order 53 rule 3(10)(a) to grant a stay of proceedings relates only to proceedings of a court.
There are two recent authorities on this subject which are relevant. In Regina v. Licensing Authority established under Medicines Act 1968, ex parte Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd. (No. 2) [1989] 2 W.L.R. 378 the Licensing Authority proposed to use confidential information supplied by Smith Kline & French with its application for a product licence in order to evaluate similar applications from competing companies. Smith Kline & French applied for a declaration, an order of prohibition and an injunction, to prevent such use. The judge at first instance granted a declaration to that effect, but the Court of Appeal reversed his decision. Smith Kline & French then applied for an interim injunction restraining the use of the information, pending the determination of their petition for leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
This court dismissed the application. However, the majority of the court (Woolf and Taylor L.J.J.) were of the opinion that the court had power to grant both declaratory and injunctive relief against officers of the Crown. Moreover, all the members of the court, including Dillon L.J., were of the view that the phrase "the proceedings" in R.S.C. Order 53 rule 3(10)(a) should be construed widely, so that in an appropriate case a stay could be ordered under that rule against the Crown. See Dillon L.J. at p. 388A-C, Woolf L.J. at p. 393E-F and Taylor L.J. at p. 395F-G. Dillon L.J., however, took the view that the order sought in that case was of the nature of an injunction, not a stay, and that there is no power to grant an injunction against officers of the Crown.
Dillon L.J.'s view regarding the limitation on the court's powers to grant injunctions was upheld in Factortame Ltd. and others v. Secretary of State for Transport [1989] 2 W.L.R. 997, and the decision of the majority in Smith Kline & French on this issue was thus overruled. The reasoning in the speech of Lord Bridge, with which the other members of the House all agreed, can be summarised as follows:
-
(i) before the passing of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, an injunction could not be granted in proceedings on the Crown side;
-
(ii) the Act of 1947 gave the right to sue the Crown in Civil proceedings, but by section 38(2) of the Act the phrase "civil proceedings." was expressly defined to exclude proceedings on the Crown side;
-
(iii) thus the power to grant declarations in lieu of injunctions under section 21 of the Act of 1947 did not apply to proceedings on the Crown side; and
-
(iv) section 31 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (upon which Woolf and Taylor L.J.J. relied as giving...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DYC Fishing Ltd v The Minister of Agriculture, Aquaculture Jamaica Ltd
... ... Crown Counsel instructed by the Director of State Proceedings for the Ministry of Agriculture ... An application for leave shall be made ex parte to a judge by filing - ... Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [2002] 3 All E.R. 97 approved Kemper ... Minister of Agriculture, the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture and also to the ... ...
-
Board of Management of Bethlehem Moravian College v Dr Paul Thompson and Another
...take effect.’ 64 To somewhat different effect is the decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in R v Secretary of State for Education and Science, ex parte Avon [1991] 1 QB 558, in which it was held that the phrase ‘the proceedings’ in RSC Ord 53 r 3(10)(a) (upon which section 5......
- Ang Sue Khoon v Majlis Bandaraya Pulau Pinang
-
Okunade v Min for Justice and Others
...19.10.2011 2011/27/7305 2011 IEHC 443 RSC O.84 r20(7) RSC O.53 r10(A) (UK) R v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCATION, EX PARTE AVON CO COUNCIL 1991 1 QB 558 1991 2 WLR 702 1991 1 AER 282 MIN OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS TRADE & INDUSTRY v VEHICLES & SUPPLIERS LTD & ANOR 1991 1 WLR 550 1991 4 AER 65 R (H) ......