Permission was refused by Cardiff High Court on 24th October 2019.

The Review Court refused permission by issuing a false statement, showing they never

properly considered my request. I was fobbed off.

 

Details

A review is not an appeal. It is not considered on the basis of legal error or wrongful dismissal. 

The review court might only consider a decision where the Appeal Court acted in contravention of the Human Rights Act or brought the Legal System into disrepute. There is also a strict 3 month time limit.

​

 My request for a review of HHJ Ralton's decision to refuse permission made two important points:

​

a. HHJ Ralton introduced a false argument to refuse permission to appeal, saying that 'omission of evidence' could not be a legal cause of Negligence, so it was not necessary to consider loss of chance', which was obviously and knowingly false and stated to refuse permission to appeal..

 

b. A breach of article 6(1) ECHR - Right to a fair Hearing from a fair Tribunal. In respect of an unfair Hearing and bias by the Lower Court. The Upper Court ignored this, dismissing Ground 10 with a false statement and not referring to it in the Judgment,  so was itself in breach of article 6 ECHR.

​

I would have submitted more evidence but was prejudiced by delay The transcript of HHJ Ralton's Judgment should have been available after twelve days, but the Court delayed, and it wasn't received until well after three months, meaning I was unable to set out important arguments and evidence that allowed a review.

​

​

 The Honourable Justice Mr Swift's reasons were:

2. The circumstances in which judicial review is available to challenge dcisions of Circuit Judges in the County Court are limited: see per Laws LJ in R(Strickson) v Preston County Court[2007] EWCA Civ 1132 at 32. Judicial review of these decisions is available where it can be shown that the judicial process has been frustrated or corrupted: for example where the Court has embarked on an inquiry outside its jurisdiction, or has acted in complete disregard of its duties or there has been a denial of the right to a fair hearing.

​

3. No error of that type is present in this case. The decision of HHJ Ralton refusing permission to appeal is thorough and carefully reasoned and considered: it addresses the merits of each of the proposed grounds of appeal in turn. Moreover (and although this is not the standard relevant to whether or not to grant permission to apply for a judicial review....), it is clear to me that on each of the 10 proposed grounds of appeal the Judge reached a conclusion that was undoubtedly reasonably open for him on a proper application o Law.

 

In short, he said HHJ Ralton answered all Grounds for Appeal so this is not a case that shows errors of the type allowing Judicial Review.

​

The Honourable Justice Mr Swift is Wrong. HHJ Ralton's judgment at para 22 dismissed Grounds 2 to 10 by saying they were the same argument. Not only were they not the same argument but none of my grounds for appeal were the argument he claimed, so a blatant lie which dismissed 90% of the Appeal in one go. Nowhere did HHJ Ralton refer to these Grounds in his Judgment.

​

CPR54.12 allowed this decision to be re-considered, but I was away so missed the 7 day deadline. Even if I could, it would be reasonable to consider that the Judiciary have an agenda to continuously ignore me as a litigant in person.

​

This decision meant that I was unfairly denied chance to bring a claim under ECHR (article 6) because of false statements by both the Appeal and Review Court. 

​