Vardon v Promotion and Grievance Appeals Tribunal

In the matter of Vardon v Promotion and Grievance Appeals Tribunal, the applicant, the Chief Executive, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Promotion and Grievance Appeals Tribunal. The Chief Executive sought permission to proceed with the application and was granted such permission by a master. The respondent, Mr Easling, applied for the permission to proceed to be revoked due to the Chief Executive's non-compliance with the administrative decision in question. The court was required to determine whether the Chief Executive's non-compliance warranted the revocation of permission and whether permission was necessary for the Chief Executive to rely on additional grounds arising after the grant of the original permission.

The court found that the Chief Executive's conduct did not warrant the revocation of permission to proceed with the application. The court held that the Chief Executive was required to obtain permission to proceed with the application if she wished to rely on additional grounds. The court granted permission in relation to one further ground and refused permission in relation to two other proposed grounds. The court found that the first of the proposed additional grounds raised a question of the weight to be attached to a matter rather than a question of jurisdiction, and that the Chief Executive had shown a reasonable basis upon which she might obtain a right to an order for judicial review. However, the court was not satisfied that the Chief Executive had established such a basis in relation to the second and third of the proposed additional grounds.

The court held that it was not reasonably arguable that the Tribunal was not permitted, as a matter of jurisdiction, from taking any account at all of the age of the matters which are the subject of criminal charges against Mr Easling or of the manner and nature of the inquiry which led to the laying of the criminal charges against him. The significance, if any, to be attached to those matters was a matter for the Tribunal. The court dismissed Mr Easling's application for revocation of permission to proceed granted to the Chief Executive and granted permission in respect of the first of the grounds contained in paragraph 11 of the affidavit of Craig Alfred Stevens sworn 5 February 2007 but refused that permission in respect of the second and third of such grounds.