“Quashed for Want of Form” in United Kingdom and Irish Jurisprudence

“Quashed for Want of Form” – A Doctrinal and Comparative Analysis in United Kingdom and Irish Law

Introduction

The expression “quashed for want of form” encapsulates a perennial tension in common-law adjudication: should an otherwise lawful outcome be nullified because of an error in the procedural wrapper that delivers it? Historically, the term signified that a conviction, administrative act, or fiscal assessment could be set aside because a document was improperly drawn, sealed, or expressed. Modern courts in the United Kingdom and Ireland have steadily narrowed the circumstances in which mere formal defects justify quashing, replacing a technical approach with one focused on substantive legality, fairness, and jurisdiction. This article traces the doctrine’s evolution, evaluates statutory responses such as section 114(1) of the Taxes Management Act 1970 (“TMA 1970”) and section 192(3) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, and compares leading authorities, most notably Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147, which reframed the very concept of nullity.[1]

Historical Context: From Certiorari Formalism to Legislative Reform

Early common-law courts exercised the supervisory writ of certiorari with scrupulous insistence on documentary exactitude. Griffith LJ famously lamented that convictions were “quashed for any defect in form” in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, prompting legislative intervention through the Summary Jurisdiction Acts of 1848 (England and Wales) and 1851 (Ireland).[2] As Lord Sumner observed in R v Nat Bell Liquors Ltd [1922] 2 AC 128, these statutes “did not stint the jurisdiction of the King’s Bench; they disarmed its exercise,” signalling a shift from form to substance.[3]

Statutory Frameworks Curtailing Quashing for Formal Defects

Section 114(1) TMA 1970

Section 114(1) declares that any tax “assessment or determination… shall not be quashed, or deemed to be void or voidable, for want of form, or be affected by a mistake, defect or omission… if the same is in substance and effect in conformity with… the Taxes Acts.” The section thus erects a legislative barrier against purely formal challenges in fiscal litigation. Authorities such as Donaldson v HMRC [2016] EWCA Civ 761[4], Archer v HMRC [2017] EWCA Civ 1962[5], and Mabbutt v HMRC [2016] UKFTT (IT) confirm that only defects going to substantive conformity or taxpayer identification justify setting aside an assessment.

Criminal and Summary Jurisdiction

  • Section 192(3)(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 forbids quashing any summary conviction “for want of form.”[6]
  • In Northern Ireland, similar restraint appears in cases such as Gracey & Anor, Re Judicial Review [2014] NIQB 79, where the Court treated an acquittal as a nullity only where a jurisdictional failure existed.[7]

Nullity versus Quashing: The Anisminic Paradigm

In Anisminic the House of Lords held that an administrative determination infected by a jurisdictional error is a nullity ab initio; no ouster clause can exclude review.[1] Lord Reid distinguished between “absence of jurisdiction to enter on the inquiry” and errors within jurisdiction. By deeming an ultra vires act a nullity, the Court rendered it unnecessary, in principle, to issue a quashing order—the act never possessed legal effect.

Subsequent decisions wrestled with whether a formal order was still required to expunge a nullity. In Salubi & Anor v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court [2002] EWHC 2556 (Admin) the Court noted that “there was nothing to quash… the rocket never left the pad,” yet nevertheless granted relief to avoid doubt.[8] Likewise, Westminster City Council v Owadally [2017] EWHC 1092 (Admin) confirmed that once jurisdictional defect is established, “the conviction would be quashed,” emphasising that waiver or acquiescence cannot cure nullity.[9]

Application in Administrative Law

Judicial Review Standards

Under section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and CPR Part 54, English courts may refuse relief for minor procedural errors unless substantial injustice would result. Yet, where an act exceeds jurisdiction, Anisminic dictates that the court must declare it void irrespective of form. Cases such as SS v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWHC 942 (Admin) illustrate the modern readiness to grant a quashing order where the decision-maker misconceives the legal test for a “fresh claim.”[10]

Local Government and Planning

In Metro Construction Ltd v London Borough of Barnet [2009] EWHC 2924 (Admin) Cranston J held that an erroneous designation “must be quashed,” rejecting arguments that the defect was merely formal.[11] The decision shows that where statutory pre-conditions are jurisdictional, any non-compliance is substantive, not formal.

Irish Administrative Law

Irish courts adopt a comparable dichotomy. In Barua v Minister for Justice [2012] IEHC 456 the High Court quashed deportation orders for jurisdictional error, whereas in Hudson v Judge Halpin [2013] IEHC 4 Charleton J decried challenges “for want of form” and emphasised substance over technicalities.[12]

Taxation: When Does “Want of Form” Still Matter?

While section 114(1) TMA 1970 curtails formal challenges, courts remain vigilant where the notice fails to convey essential information. In Donaldson, the Court of Appeal held that the assessment was invalid because it did not specify the period of daily penalties, a matter “in substance” and not mere form.[4] Conversely, in Revenue and Customs v Benham (Specialist Cars) Ltd [2017] UKUT 0446 (TCC) the Upper Tribunal applied section 114 to uphold a defective notice that was nevertheless substantively compliant.[13]

Criminal Proceedings: Defects and Jurisdictional Error

Criminal appellate courts distinguish between:

  1. Defects that go to jurisdiction (e.g., absence of indictment), rendering proceedings a nullity (Salubi).[8]
  2. Errors within jurisdiction, where section 31 Courts Act principles or statutory “no quashing” clauses apply (e.g., section 192(3) CPSA 1995 in FB v Procurator Fiscal [2014] HCJAC 56).[6]

The Northern Irish decision in Belfast City Council, Re Judicial Review [2008] NIQB 121 synthesises Anisminic, clarifying that only excess of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice mandates quashing.[14]

Normative Assessment: Balancing Technical Accuracy and the Rule of Law

The trajectory of the doctrine indicates a judicial policy against over-formalism. Nevertheless, a rigid rejection of all form-based challenges risks undermining legislative safeguards designed to inform affected persons. Statutory clauses like section 114(1) TMA 1970 or section 192(3) CPSA 1995 reflect an attempt to codify this balance: trivial errors should not invalidate official acts, but substantive omissions remain fatal. The pivotal inquiry, therefore, is whether the defect impairs the decision-maker’s jurisdiction or prejudices the individual’s ability to respond.

Conclusion

The phrase “quashed for want of form” has been largely relegated to legal history, superseded by a principled distinction between jurisdictional nullity and curable defect. Anisminic anchors the contemporary approach, holding that acts in excess of power are void, not merely voidable. Legislative provisions across the United Kingdom and Ireland restrict quashing for minor mistakes, yet courts continue to intervene where substance, fairness, or jurisdiction is compromised. The prevailing doctrine thus harmonises procedural economy with the rule of law, ensuring that governmental and judicial acts alike are evaluated on substantive legality rather than technical slip.

Footnotes

  1. Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 (HL).
  2. Hudson v Judge Halpin & Anor [2013] IEHC 4 at §3.
  3. R v Nat Bell Liquors Ltd [1922] 2 AC 128 at 159.
  4. Donaldson v HMRC [2016] EWCA Civ 761, [2018] STC 37.
  5. Archer v HMRC [2017] EWCA Civ 1962, [2018] STC 225.
  6. FB v Procurator Fiscal, Aberdeen [2014] HCJAC 56; Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, s 192(3).
  7. Gracey & Anor, Re Judicial Review [2014] NIQB 79.
  8. Salubi & Anor, R (on the application of) v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court [2002] EWHC 2556 (Admin).
  9. Westminster City Council v Owadally & Anor [2017] EWHC 1092 (Admin).
  10. SS v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWHC 942 (Admin).
  11. Metro Construction Ltd v London Borough of Barnet [2009] EWHC 2924 (Admin).
  12. Barua v Minister for Justice and Equality [2012] IEHC 456; Hudson v Judge Halpin [2013] IEHC 4.
  13. Revenue and Customs v Benham (Specialist Cars) Ltd [2017] UKUT 0446 (TCC) at [63]–[64].
  14. Belfast City Council, Re Judicial Review [2008] NIQB 121.