Brown, R (on the application of) v Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE KNOWLES
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Mr Brown sought judicial review regarding the handling of his case at the Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court, particularly the finalization of a charging order by Deputy District Judge Sofaer. The court directed that Mr Brown's application for fee exemption for an oral appeal hearing be treated as successful, and an oral hearing be scheduled before a Circuit Judge. The decision emphasizes the importance of proper process and procedural compliance to ensure a fair hearing.
J U D G M E N T
MR JUSTICE KNOWLES: Mr Brown seeks judicial review in respect of the way in which certain matters have proceeded at the Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court.
He was given permission to bring this judicial review by Holman J on 8 May 2014, following an oral hearing. Since that oral hearing, a transcript of an earlier hearing before Deputy District Judge Sofaer at the Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court on 1 August 2013 has been provided, as ordered by Holman J, and Mr Brown has also provided a witness statement pursuant to an order made by Ouseley J. Mr Brown appears in person today; the defendant does not appear.
In the earlier proceedings before the Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court, Mr Brown found himself the subject of orders to pay sums amounting to just over £2,000. An interim charging order, which was briefly discharged but then reinstated, was made in favour of NSL Services Group Limited. Then, by Deputy District Judge Sofaer at the hearing on 1 August 2013, a final charging order was made, or a continuation of the interim charging order was ordered.
A restriction on the land registry has been entered but no attempts to enforce the charging order have been made, to date, to Mr Brown's knowledge. Nor has Mr Brown paid anything. NSL Services Limited has been made an interested party in these judicial review proceedings but does not appear today.
I summarise, but Mr Brown criticises five things, essentially, about the hearing before Deputy District Judge Sofaer.
First, he says that the Deputy District Judge assumed that more had been dealt with by a District Judge at an earlier hearing on 12 June 2013, when the interim charging order was reinstated, than was in fact the case.
Second, he contends that Deputy District Judge Sofaer was wrong to say that he might only deal with matters that had arisen since 12 June 2013.
Third, Mr Brown says that District Judge Sofaer should have allowed him to address the whole principle of a charging order, rather than starting from a position that there was already an interim charging order and reasoning that should become final unless there was a reason why it should not.
Fourth, Mr Brown contends that Deputy District Judge Sofaer declined to require the debt that would be the subject of the charging order be broken down into its constituent elements.
Fifth, Mr Brown contends that Deputy District Judge Sofaer did not deal with the (admittedly) small point of set-off against the de