R v The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration ex parte Atholl Grant Murray
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE STUART-SMITH,LORD JUSTICE MUMMERY,MR JUSTICE JONATHAN PARKER |
| Judgment Date | 27 May 1999 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1999] EWCA Civ J0527-12 |
| Docket Number | FC3 98/7439/4 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 27 May 1999 |
[1999] EWCA Civ J0527-12
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
MR JUSTICE LAWS)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London W2A 2LL
Lord Justice Stuart-smith
Lord Justice Mummery
Mr Justice Jonathan Parker
FC3 98/7439/4
THE APPLICANT appeared in person.
MISS ALICE ROBINSON (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
This is a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Parliamentary Commission for Administration, said to have been made on 24 September 1996, refusing to investigate Mr Murray's complaint concerning the Department of Trade and Industry and English Industrial Estates Corporation. Permission to move was applied for but refused by Mr Justice Laws, as he then was, in the High Court on 23 October 1998 following an oral hearing.
The facts are these. The applicant was a majority shareholder in a company called North Country Foods Limited. On 17 August 1988 the English Industrial Estates Corporation ("EIEC") granted North Country Foods a 24-year lease of a factory in Park View Industrial Estate, Hartlepool. Due to a series of break-ins and persistent vandalism North Country Foods wished to erect a security fence around the factory. In order to do so they were required, under the lease, to obtain the consent of the EIEC, which was not forthcoming.
North Country Foods had a number of meetings with the DTI, to whom the EIEC were answerable, between May 1989 and February 1990 to try and resolve the issue. The DTI did not take any action against the EIEC and North Country Foods claimed that as a result it lost business, a substantial amount of money and a valuable DTI grant. As a result North Country Foods went into receivership and the applicant himself lost a great deal money.
The applicant complained vociferously to the DTI and figures in the Government. The DTI refused to intervene due to a statement made by the EIEC, which the applicant claims was false, that they had not opposed the construction of the security fence at any time. The DTI decided that it could not arbitrate in a dispute between North Country Foods and the EIEC.
The applicant, both directly and through various Members of Parliament, wrote to the ombudsman, the Parliamentary Commissioner, on many occasions between 1992 and 1996 complaining about the EIEC and the DTI. The ombudsman refused to investigate those complaints.
The substance of the applicant's complaints to the ombudsman was that the DTI had failed to investigate the EIEC and failed to issue a statutory direction to them, notwithstanding the evidence that the EIEC had wrongly opposed North Country Foods' request to build a security fence; and, secondly, they had subsequently claimed that it had not opposed the construction of a fence.
From his letters in 1992 and 1993 it is apparent that the ombudsman considered the matter in considerable detail but decided not to investigate the applicant's complaints on a number of bases. Firstly, he said that the EIEC did not come under his jurisdiction and he referred to Schedule 2 of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial