Nash, R (On the Application Of) v Brighton County Court

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal by the Appellant against the refusal of permission to apply for judicial review of decisions made by the Respondent in possession proceedings. The Appellant occupied a property from 2016 after a six‑month tenancy; the co‑tenant left in 2017 and the Appellant continued in occupation with the landlord's consent and without a written agreement. The landlord (Company A) served a notice under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 in June 2023. Accelerated possession proceedings followed and, at a hearing on 15 March 2024 before Judge Slack, the Respondent made a possession order treating the tenancy as periodic and holding the s.21 notice valid. The Appellant filed a late appeal to a Circuit Judge which was dismissed on 21 November 2024 as out of time and totally without merit by Judge Simpkiss. An application to set aside that order was refused by Judge Simpkiss on 26 March 2025. A warrant of possession was executed in April 2025 and the Appellant vacated the property.

In June 2025 the Appellant issued judicial review proceedings challenging the Respondent's refusal of reconsideration. Permission to apply for judicial review was refused on paper by Judge Sheldon on 16 September 2025. The Appellant renewed his application before Judge Stacey on 6 November 2025; that application was refused. The Appellant sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal (Judge Jackson, Judge Birss and Judge Laing) heard the Appellant in person on 14 July 2026 and considered the history and prior rulings.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the hearing before Judge Stacey was void for want of notice such that the hearing and resulting order were void ab initio.
2. Whether the Administrative Court was required to grant relief on an unopposed claim and whether refusal to do so was irrational, as allegedly supported by the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2025 paragraph cited by the Appellant.
3. Whether there is a systemic conflict of interest in judges reviewing colleagues and whether the Appellant was entitled to a trial by jury under section 69 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 in relation to his allegations (including malicious prosecution, fraud and defamation).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The hearing before Judge Stacey was procedurally null due to lack of notice, rendering refusal inevitable and void.
• The Administrative Court should have granted relief on an unopposed claim as per the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide (paragraph cited by the Appellant).
• There is a systematic conflict of interest preventing fair review by judges; alleging misconduct including malicious prosecution, fraud by the landlord's counsel, false imprisonment, and defamation; seeks a jury trial under s.69 Senior Courts Act 1981.
• Alleges suppression or alteration of documents by the Civil Appeals Office and seeks extensive costs and remedies including reinstatement in the property and referral of Judge Stacey to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office.

Respondent's Participation

The Respondent did not attend or participate in the proceedings before the Court of Appeal.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed the procedural and substantive history and the prior Administrative Court decisions. It applied established authorities limiting judicial review from County Court appeal refusals to narrow, exceptional circumstances (notably denial of a fair hearing or corruption of the judicial process). The court found:

• The County Court had jurisdiction to hear the possession claim and to consider the validity of the s.21 notice; prior judges reached tenable conclusions on the available evidence.
• The Appellant had opportunities to present arguments at the 15 March 2024 hearing; the transcript did not show that he was prevented from requesting to present evidence and the Deputy District Judge addressed the central issue (validity of the s.21 notice).
• The late appeal was properly dismissed as out of time and without merit; extensions of time and merits were matters for the appellate judges and disagreement with those discretionary decisions does not provide a basis for judicial review.
• The Appellant's cited paragraph from the Administrative Court Guide (as to usual grant of relief on unopposed claims) was not found in the Guide and in any event does not support automatic relief; Talpada confirms unchallenged evidence is not automatically decisive.
• Allegations of systemic conflict, corruption, and need for a jury lacked legal foundation; there is no power to order a jury trial in these Administrative Court proceedings and the allegations did not show the sort of procedural failure or corruption required to permit judicial review.
• The Appellant's extensive allegations concerning document suppression, wide-ranging complaints, and voluminous communications did not identify any missing material or legal error; prior judges had considered the material carefully and found no arguable grounds.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The Court refused permission to appeal and certified the application as totally without merit.

Implications: The Appellant's route of judicial review was not open on the facts; the County Court's decisions and the Administrative Court refusals are upheld. The effect is that the Appellant's challenge to the possession proceedings is dismissed and no further review was granted. The court warned that continued pursuit of unmeritorious applications may lead to a Civil Restraint Order. The opinion did not purport to establish any new precedent beyond applying established authorities limiting judicial review in this context.