R (Quintavalle) v the Secretary of State for Health
[2003] 2 AC 687, Lord Bingham stated at 695:“The court’s task, within the permissible bounds of interpretation, is to give effect to Parliament’s purpose. So the controversial provisions should be read in the context of the statute as a whole, and the statute as a whole should be read in the historical context of the situation which led to its enactment”.17. Bearing in mind the latter principle, we would observe that the delivery of swift, inexpensive and uncomplicated justice has long been the overarching ethos of tribunal adjudication. See, for example, the discussion in Wade and Forsyth, Administrative Law (10th Edition), per pp 773 – 774. This forms part of the context in which the 2007 Act was introduced. The background to this enactment includes the report of Sir Andrew Leggatt, followed by a White Paper (CM.6243/2004) which accepted many of its recommendations. Sir Andrew’s report contains the following noteworthy passage, at paragraph 1.2: “… Tribunal’s procedures and approach to overseeing the preparation of cases and their hearing can be simpler and more informal than the courts, even after the civil justice reforms.”One of the main aims of the legislation which followed, in the form of the 2007 Act, was to introduce the “user-oriented service” strongly recommended by Sir Andrew (see paragraph 1.4 of his report).18. A second, inter-related aspect of the context in which the 2007 Act was devised is the overriding objective, with its emphasis on expedition, finality and the suppression of avoidable delay. The overriding objective was, by 2007, firmly established in civil proceedings, was gaining a foothold in criminal proceedings and was being introduced in tribunal proceedings, at both tiers. As regards the Upper Tribunal, it is contained in Rule 2 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, which came into operation on 3 November 2008. Generally, in the United Kingdom legal system the overriding objective and related measures, including wholesale reform of rules of procedure in both courts and tribunals, progressively gained traction during a period in which the imperative of defeating the so-called unholy trinity of avoidable delay, excessive costs and unwarranted complication became increasingly dominant. By 2007 the Civil Procedure Rules were firmly entrenched, having been introduced on 26 April 1999. 19. While the developments in civil and tribunal procedure noted above have occurred during the last two decades, there is nothing novel about them. The principle that legal proceedings should be concluded as expeditiously as possible is expressed in the longstanding Latin maxim interest rei publicae ut sit finis litium. Over a century has passed since this maxim was recognised as possessing “extreme value”: by Lord Loreburn LC in
- Direction Regarding Anonymity – Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008
- Introduction
- The Issue
- The Proceedings to Date
- Statutory Framework
- “Right of appeal to the Tribunal
- “Pending appeal
- Section 11
- “Right to appeal to Upper Tribunal
- “Proceedings on appeal to Upper Tribunal
- “Right to appeal to Court of Appeal etc.
- “Overriding objective and parties’ obligation to co-operate with the Upper Tribunal
- “Case management powers
- The Parties’ Contentions In Outline
- Discussion
- A right of appeal is conferred by statute or equivalent legislative authority; it is not a mere matter of practice or procedure and neither the superior nor the inferior Court or Tribunal nor both combined can create or take away such a right.
- Evans v Bartlam
- Re D (A Child)
- R v Z
- R (Quintavalle) v the Secretary of State for Health
- Brown v Dean
- R v Pinfold
- Hewitson v Hewitson
- R v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex Parte Kebeline
- McLuckie v Coroner for Northern Ireland
- further
- partial
- Conclusion
