Case Note – challenging the Court’s jurisdiction in judicial review proceedings: R (Girgis) v Joint Committee on Intercollegiate Examinations [2021] EWHC 2256 (Admin)

26 August 2021

The Administrative Court of England & Wales has recently considered a challenge to its jurisdiction to hear a judicial review claim on the basis (asserted by the defendant) that the claim should be heard at the Court of Session in Scotland. As explained below, the challenge was unsuccessful, but the case is interesting not just because of the Court’s conclusion on the substantive issue but also because of His Honour Judge Simon’s approach to the “technical” (procedural) issues the case gave rise to.

The claimant, Mr Girgis, is a urologist who wished to become a consultant. In order to be eligible for entry to the Specialist Register of the General Medical Council, an aspiring consultant must pass certain exams. The exams are administered by the defendant, the Joint Committee on Intercollegiate Examinations (JCIE), an unincorporated body, which acts as a parent body for ten speciality surgical boards (including the Urology speciality board) and for the four surgical Royal Colleges of Edinburgh, Glasgow, England and Ireland. In practice the administration and governance of JCIE is hosted within the Royal College of Surgeons Edinburgh, but it has no greater affiliation to that College than to the other three Colleges.

Mr Girgis failed one examination and, having exhausted JCIE’s appeal process, sought to bring a judicial review claim (on grounds that are not clear from the recent judgment). JCIE challenged the Administrative Court’s jurisdiction to hear the claim, by virtue of the Civil Jurisdiction and Justice Act 1982 (CJJA) and/or the Union with Scotland Act 1706 and/or on the basis of forum non conveniens. That challenge was heard as a preliminary issue, prior to consideration of the application for permission to bring the claim.

In very broad terms, CJJA provides that ‘in certain civil proceedings’, where the subject matter of the proceedings falls within the scope of EU Regulation 1215/2012 (the Regulation) and in which the defendant is domiciled within a part of the United Kingdom, the defendant can only be sued in the courts of that part.  The Regulation applies “in civil or commercial matters” but does not apply to “revenue, customs or administrative matters”: the issue the Court therefore had to consider was whether or not Mr Girgis’ case was an administrative matter and thus outside or inside the scope of the Regulation. His Honour Judge Simon concluded that this was an administrative matter. The key consideration that led him to that conclusion were: the defendant was the sole provider of the relevant exams for the College and specialities; that, properly assessed, the situation was to be regarded “as characterising an extension of the relationship” between Mr Girgis and his professional regulator; and, the aim of the exams was the maintenance of proper standards which is “fundamentally, a manifestation of public protection, statutorily derived from the Medical Act 1983”.

In relation to the argument on the Union with Scotland Act 1706/forum non conveniens, His Honour Judge Simon ruled that although the Court of Session was another available forum to hear the case, it was not “clearly and distinctly more appropriate in the particular circumstances of this case” and in light of that the proceedings were to proceed in the Administrative Court. The principal factors that led the judge to his conclusion were: although JCIE is based in Edinburgh, it “operates on behalf of professional bodies outside of, as well as inside, Scotland and the qualification gained…permits inclusion on a professional register established by UK-wide legislation and which takes effect across the United Kingdom”; and, that the effect of JCIE’s decision under challenge “resonates upon the Claimant who at all material times has lived and worked in England, and by extension although to a lesser extent upon his employing Trust”.

The two main technical issues that the Court had to consider were firstly whether JCIE should have made an application under CPR 11 in order to pursue the jurisdiction challenge; and, secondly, the approach to take to applications by Mr Girgis for an extension of time, of one day, for filing the proceedings and an application by JCIE for an extension of time, of a longer period, for filing its acknowledgement of service.

CPR 11 makes provision for the circumstances in which a defendant seeks to dispute the jurisdiction of the Court and requires (CPR 11(4)) that an application must be made within 14 days of filing the acknowledgement of service and provides (CPR 11(5)) that if the acknowledgement of service is filed and the application required by CPR 11(4), the defendant “is to be treated as having accepted that the court has jurisdiction to try the claim”. However the notes accompanying CPR 11 in the White Book suggest that in judicial review proceedings “…the usual, and in practice safest, course of action, is for a defendant who wishes to raise any jurisdictional issue to raise that issue in the acknowledgement of service and to invite the court to refuse permission to apply for judicial review for that reason”. JCIE followed the course of action suggested in that note and applied successfully to vary the Court’s direction that an application in accordance with CPR Part 11 must be made. Mr Girgis challenged this on the basis that CPR 11 applied in full to judicial review proceedings and that the mandatory consequence set out in CPR 11(5) should follow. In the event, His Honour Judge Simon decided that he did not need to decide whether CPR11 applied in full to judicial review proceedings, expressing the view that the jurisdiction point need to be decided on substantive arguments and “not on a technical procedural point”. Although this approach of substance over form is to be welcomed, in future cases it may be prudent for a defendant to follow CPR 11 when challenging jurisdiction, to avoid the risk of a different judge taking a more rigorous approach.

His Honour Judge Simon also took a pragmatic approach to the two applications for extensions of time, allowing both. There is nothing out of the ordinary about this, save that it contrasts starkly with the approach of Mrs Justice O’Farrell DBE in R (The Good Law Project) v  The Secretary of State of Health and Social Care [2021] EWHC 1782 (TCC), where she refused the claimant’s application, in judicial review proceedings, for an extension of time of one day for service of the sealed claim form (in circumstances where a copy of the sealed form had been emailed to the individual work addresses of the defendant’s lawyers acting in the case within the period allowed for service, but had not also been sent to the specific email address designated by the Government Legal Department for service of proceedings). The only material difference between the Girgis case and The Good Law Project case is that in the former each party consented to the other’s application whereas in the latter the defendant relied on late service of the claim form as the basis for the Court having no jurisdiction to hear the claim.

Whatever the reason for the defendant’s approach in The Good Law Project case – and one might speculate that it could be connected to the fact that this was just one of a series of hard fought claims brought by the Good Law Project in respect of COVID related procurement issues – it will be interesting to see if it presages a more general technical/procedural approach to judicial review claims by central government.

Further Information

If you have any questions or concerns about the content covered in this blog, please contact any member of our Public Law team.


About the Author

Adam Chapman is a Partner in our Public Law team. He has a wealth of knowledge as a public lawyer and his areas of expertise include judicial review litigation, human rights law, public inquiries, inquests, information law and contempt of court.


Latest blogs & news

The Judicial Review and Courts Bill: Proposed reform of Judicial Review

Attempts to narrow the scope of judicial review have long been on the Conservative Party’s political agenda. Following the Independent Review of Administrative Law (‘IRAL’) and the subsequent government consultation on reform of judicial review, the then Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland, introduced the Judicial Review and Courts Bill (‘the Bill’) to the House of Commons on 21 July 2021. The Bill is making its way through Parliament and is currently at the committee stage.

As we highlighted in our earlier blog following the Bill’s announcement, the proposed reforms are, at first sight, milder than had been feared. Nevertheless, the Bill proposes to make significant amendments to the remedies available in judicial review proceedings and to also limit the court’s jurisdiction.

Case Note – challenging the Court’s jurisdiction in judicial review proceedings: R (Girgis) v Joint Committee on Intercollegiate Examinations [2021] EWHC 2256 (Admin)

The Administrative Court of England & Wales has recently considered a challenge to its jurisdiction to hear a judicial review claim on the basis (asserted by the defendant) that the claim should be heard at the Court of Session in Scotland. As explained below, the challenge was unsuccessful, but the case is interesting not just because of the Court’s conclusion on the substantive issue but also because of His Honour Judge Simon’s approach to the “technical” (procedural) issues the case gave rise to.

New guidance encourages judicial review practitioners to be concise, succinct and prepared

Earlier this year, changes to Practice Direction 54A (covering judicial review) and 54B (covering urgent applications) came into effect. This blog will consider the impact that the changes have had on the procedure for judicial review, before turning to a recent example of the perils of failing to follow the rules.

Can you devise an effective ouster clause to exclude a category of decision making from judicial review?

The Judicial Review and Courts Bill contains a new ‘ouster clause’ designed to prevent judicial review of the Upper Tribunal’s decisions on certain applications for permission to appeal against decisions of the First-Tier Tribunal. This blog explores why drafting legislation to restrict judicial review is so difficult.

The UK Supreme Court has confirmed the principles for judicial review of policies

R (A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 37 and R (BF (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 38

Two linked Supreme Court judgments provide a reminder to claimants that challenges to policies should focus on whether the policies authorise or approve violations of the law. The court acknowledges that policies are issued to promote practical objectives and the standards set for reviewing them must not be unduly demanding.

Judicial Review Reform – waiting for the sting

Long awaited reforms to judicial review were revealed yesterday by Robert Buckland in his Judicial Review and Courts Bill. Thankfully the proposals to suspend quashing orders and limit their retrospective effect retain all-important judicial discretion and, at face value, are milder than feared. However, the decision to exclude the review of Upper Tribunal permission-to-appeal decisions (so called “Cart JRs”) is more troubling, marking the return of ouster clauses and possibly setting the groundwork for the removal of the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court in future legislation.

Supreme Court rules that Nigerian communities can have their case against Shell heard in the English courts

This morning (12 February 2021) the UK Supreme Court handed down judgment in Okpabi & others v Royal Dutch Shell (“Okpabi”), a case concerning mass oil pollution in the Niger Delta. Judgment is in favour of the claimants, communities representing over 40,000 affected citizens of Nigeria, whose claim against oil conglomerate Shell and its Nigerian subsidiary can now be heard in the English courts.

Office for Students refusal to register higher education provider unlawful due to failure to delegate and ‘secret policy’

The Bloomsbury Institute was fighting to survive financially after the Office for Students refused its application for registration. It brought a judicial review challenge which revealed that an unpublished policy had been followed. The policy had been formulated by an official who did not have the power to make the relevant decisions.

International Court of Justice and UN General Assembly do not alter the outcome of the Chagos Islands challenge

In a February 2019 Advisory Opinion, the International Court of Justice stated that, under international law, the decolonisation of Mauritius by the UK has never been lawfully completed and the UK must therefore “end its administration” of the Chagos islands.

Voter ID laws and the way courts interpret legislation

Interpreting legislation is both an art and a science. This recent Court of Appeal case illustrates how judges do it in the context of the statutory scheme used to introduce controversial voter ID pilot schemes.

The High Court confirms that unincorporated associations may participate in both judicial review claims and statutory challenges

Even if it is generally more straightforward for the claimant to be a legal person, this judgment may give confidence to the likes of amateur sports clubs and campaigning pressure groups considering challenging the exercise of public power.

Enemies of the constitution? The words of those attacking independent judges are corrosive and wrong

Everyone has an opinion on yesterday’s decision of the UK Supreme Court. Boris Johnson said on television that he profoundly disagreed with it. Jacob Rees-Mogg reportedly called it a ‘constitutional coup’ on a cabinet conference call. Former Lord Chancellor Michael Gove was distinctly equivocal about it when interviewed on the Today programme. Laura Kuenssberg reported on Twitter that a No 10 source said ‘the Supreme Court is wrong and has made a serious mistake in extending its reach into these political matters’. The fact these people all claim they will still ‘respect’ the decision does not detract from the corrosiveness of their sentiments.

Since prorogation ‘never happened’ what happens next?

The prorogation judicial reviews concerned the constitutional equilibrium between government, parliament and the courts. Today, an 11 member UK Supreme Court panel affirmed its centuries-old supervisory jurisdiction over acts of government and ruled unanimously that Boris Johnson’s government failed to advance any reasonable justification for proroguing parliament. The prorogation was therefore unlawful and ‘never happened’ so parliament is back in the game.

When politics and law collide: The prorogation judicial reviews

Scotland’s highest court and a senior divisional court of the High Court in England and Wales have reached opposite conclusions about whether the recent decision to prorogue parliament was lawful.

“WhatsApp” with Dominic Grieve’s motion for Brexit communications?

Monday night’s marathon session in Parliament saw a number of issues debated into the small hours and further defeats for the government. While many raised important political and legal issues, one of particular interest to information lawyers, followers of Parliamentary procedure and journalists alike was the endorsement of a “Humble Address” motion brought by former Attorney General, Dominic Grieve.

High Court finds Mayor’s Congestion Charge decision did not involve unlawful discrimination

On 24 July 2019, the High Court handed down judgment in R (on the application of Independent Workers Union Of Great Britain and others) v Mayor Of London [2019] EWHC 1997 (Admin). This case related to the decision in December 2018 by the Mayor of London to remove an exemption and require private hire vehicles (“PHV”) to pay the Congestion Charge from 8 April 2019


London Climate Action Week: Saving Londoners from nitrogen dioxide, one judicial review at a time

According to the most recent data, two million people in London are living with illegal levels of air pollution. Nitrogen dioxide is one of the main pollutants and road transport is estimated to be responsible for 50% of total emissions.

KN Green Week: Can law help save the world?

We have seen in recent months various and different attempts by those who want to change the course of government policy on the issue of climate change.

Court finds approach by DWP to Universal Credit ‘odd in the extreme’

The High Court judgment of R (Johnson, Woods, Barrett and Stewart) v SSWP [2019]EWHC 23 (Admin) involved a judicial review challenge to the method of calculating universal credit. The claimants successfully demonstrated that the DWP’s method of calculation was an incorrect interpretation of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 (the Regulations) as it failed to account for circumstances where workers’ pay dates do not converge with the fixed assessment periods under the universal credit scheme. 

Judicial Review costs – a missed opportunity to extend access to justice

In its consultation “Extending Fixed Recoverable Costs in Civil Cases: Implementing Sir Rupert Jackson’s proposals”, which was launched on 28 March 2019, the Ministry of Justice has failed to take forward a proposal that could have had a significant impact on the ability of individuals to hold public bodies to account through judicial review proceedings.

Share insightLinkedIn Twitter Facebook Email to a friend Print

Email this page to a friend

We welcome views and opinions about the issues raised in this blog. Should you require specific advice in relation to personal circumstances, please use the form on the contact page.

Leave a comment

Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility