Guide

Judicial review: the importance of being prompt

The decision in Bassington v HM Procureur 1998 26 GLJ heralded the first formal recognition by the Guernsey Court of Appeal that it had an inherent jurisdiction to control excess or abuse of power by executive bodies. In Bassington Guernsey was described as a jurisdiction bearing the 'mark of a civilised polity' where private citizens could challenge administrative decisions affecting their private rights. Further judicial guidance in relation to judicial review in Guernsey came this September from the Court of Appeal in the case of Helen Litchfield v the Director of Environmental Health and Pollution Regulation, Judgment 37/2014.

The judgment in Litchfield contains guidance on the procedure to be adopted in judicial review cases and particular note should be taken of the Bailiff's comments regarding delay in bringing an application. The Bailiff provides a salutary warning that an applicant who fails to bring an application for leave promptly, and in any event within three months, in any prospective judicial review matter runs the risk of being refused on that ground. It is important to look at the facts of the Litchfield case to see how the Court of Appeal judged what Ms Litchfield did or did not do when making their assessment of whether she acted promptly.