R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte A (15 April 1999) House of Lords

This is not an environment related case but concerns a procedural point on judicial review. Judicial review procedure is used in many environment related cases. This case looks at whether the Court of Appeal could reconsider, on the substantive hearing of A's application for judicial review, the question of delay in making that decision. A had applied to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board claiming that she had been assaulted during a burglary at her house. Her application was refused. A then applied for judicial review of the Board's decision, and was granted leave to do so even though her application was made outside the time period provided for in Order 53 rule 4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. This is permitted where the court finds good reason for doing so. On the substantive hearing in the High Court, the judge rejected the Board's contention that the delay had caused hardship, prejudice or detriment to good administration, but ruled that he was entitled to reconsider the question of delay on the basis that no good reason had been shown for extending the period, and that he could refuse to extend time and could treat the grant of leave in effect as a conditional leave. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision. The House of Lords decided that it had not been necessary for the Court of Appeal to reconsider the issue of whether good reason had been shown for an extension of time, that issue having been concluded when A applied for judicial review and, as a result, the Court of Appeal had been acting outside its jurisdiction in this respect.
(Independent Law Reports, 15 April 1999)