Interested Party in Legal Proceedings

Silver J.A.`s decision on jurisdiction addresses an important legal issue that applies to any business that is or intends to become an interested party in a judicial review proceeding. It adds to the hitherto understood meaning of the expression `directly concerned`, according to which the parties should be `concerned without the intervention of an intermediary` (see, for example, R (on the application by Telefónica O2 Europe plc) v Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform [2007] EWHC 3018 (Admin)). Where the application for judicial review relates to proceedings before a court, any other party to those proceedings is an interested party to the judicial review proceedings, for example: if the defendant in a criminal case before the magistrates or the Crown Court applies for judicial review of a decision in that case, the Crown must always be designated as the party interested in judicial review. Relatives of victims of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (“vCJD”) had initiated judicial review proceedings against the Minister of Health in connection with proposed changes to the government`s compensation schemes. Mr. Simms and Ms. Mills had vCJD. They requested and were granted leave to participate in the proceedings as parties to the proceedings. However, once approved, the remedy which they sought changed, so that there was no longer any overlap between the remedies which they sought and those sought in the dispute in the main proceedings.

In addition, the remedies were based on different proposals. The Secretary of State challenged the jurisdiction of the General Court to hear Mr Simms and Ms Mills, who then argued that the appeal they had now sought was in fact inseparable from the original case or the case raised by the appellants at the previous hearing. They also argued that the court had full discretion to hear them and grant them adequate remedy. The judge noted that the possibility of becoming an interested party within the meaning of this definition is limited. In particular, entities that are not “directly concerned” have no role or authority to be involved in the action and the court does not have jurisdiction to hear them (except to the limited extent provided for in Article 54.17). If they are related as interested parties, their participation is dictated by the orientation of the main claim: if, in the course of the proceedings, the main claim changes so that they are no longer directly affected, the court loses jurisdiction over them. Without jurisdiction, the court cannot rule on their claims with regard to the type of judicial review, which involves the annulment of administrative decisions. Permission to participate is also not a license to invoke any case: you must remain “directly concerned”. If they wish to bring an independent and autonomous action, they must obtain leave to bring such an action in accordance with section 31(3) of the Superior Courts Act 1981 and section 54.4 of the CPP. In the event of a mistake, Silber J. doubted whether an interested party`s application could be heard independently of the principal claim, given the “directly concerned” requirement. Whether as an interested person or as an intervener, the reasons why an interested person can intervene in guardianship proceedings are as varied as the families involved in these cases.

Disputes with interested persons are generally not about whether a guardian should be appointed, but about who should be appointed guardian. In R (on McVey`s application) v Secretary of State for Health [2010] EWHC 1225 (Admin), the High Court held that, in judicial review proceedings, it did not have the power to hear interested third parties who were no longer directly affected by a claim. A person is “directly concerned” if he or she is affected by the granting of an appeal in the proceedings. In Muldoon, for example, the decision of a local housing authority not to pay housing allowance was challenged. The Secretary of State indirectly feared that, if the decision were annulled, the benefit at issue would be added to the subsidy paid to the local authority.