British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Tian, R (on the application of) v Commission for Local Administration in England & Anor [2009] EWHC 920 (Admin) (09 March 2009)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/920.html
Cite as: [2009] EWHC 920 (Admin)
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
The Strand London WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
(Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Queen's Bench Division)
____________________
| The Queen on the application of | ||
| GA TIAN | ||
| Claimant | ||
| - v - | ||
| THE COMMISSION FOR LOCAL ADMINISTRATION IN ENGLAND | ||
| Defendant | ||
| and | ||
| ISLINGTON BOROUGH COUNCIL | ||
| Interested Party |
____________________
Wordwave International Ltd (a Merrill Communications Company)
190 Fleet Street, London EC4
Telephone No: 020 7421 4040
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- This is a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review. The application was lodged on 26 September 2008. Permission was refused on 3 December 2008 by Mr Stuart Isaacs QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court. I am very grateful to Mr Tian for his courtesy before this court, and indeed to his interpreter Mr Kwan for his skill.
- The defendant, the Commissioner for Local Administration, is not represented in court, but has responded on paper. I take into account all the papers submitted by both parties and by the Interested Party, Islington Borough Council.
- The case concerns the right to buy council property. The claimant wished to exercise his right to buy. The property in question, 77 Fyfield, was contaminated with asbestos. At the time of the proposed purchase the claimant did not obtain an independent professional valuation of the property before deciding whether to accept the purchase price in the statutory notice. He appears to have assumed that he could unquestioningly accept the council's valuation.
- This is the second set of judicial review proceedings of the Commissioner. For a finding to be made against the council concerned, the Commissioner must find that there is maladministration. If there is no maladministration then the Commissioner cannot provide a remedy.
- On the merits of the case (before I deal with any question of delay), I agree with the conclusion of the Local Government Ombudsman's investigator contained in a letter dated 27 June 2008, that it was for the claimant as prospective purchaser to satisfy himself that the council's valuation reflected the true market value of similar properties on similar estates in the area.
- Quite simply, I agree with the Commission that the Interested Party, Islington Borough Council, made no error of law and followed the statutory Right to Buy procedures. I have much sympathy with Mr Tian's predicament, but that falls far short of giving him a remedy by way of judicial review. In my judgment this case lacks merit and is bound to fail. That is the main reason for my refusing permission today.
- The previous Deputy High Court Judge who dealt with this case found that this claim for judicial review was not brought promptly. He held that it should not be permitted on the grounds of delay. The position is that the letter to which I have already referred from the Local Government Ombudsman's investigator, against which judicial review is sought, was dated 27 June 2008. The facts were identical in all material respects to Mr Tian's previous attempt at judicial review, which also failed. The application was made within the three month limit by one day. However, the previous judge was of the view that it could and should have been made much more promptly. Although the principal ground for my refusal, as I have said, is lack of merit, I hold too that this is a case in which there has been a significant failure of promptness and I also refuse permission on that additional basis.
Monday 9 March 2009
THE DEPUTY JUDGE: