Read the full judgment text of CACV 000103/1994 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 27 January 1995 before Penlington JA, Mortimer JA, Godfrey JA.
Civil procedure – judicial review – title of proceedings – persons directly affected – service under RSC O.53 r.5(3) – whether a person 'directly affected' by an application for judicial review, but against whom no relief is sought, must be named as a respondent in the title of the action – complaint to Dental Council against dentist following personal relationship with applicant's wife – Preliminary Investigation Committee decided no prima facie case – applicant sought judicial review, naming dentist as 2nd respondent in title though no relief sought against him – whether dentist should be named in title or only served – held (majority: Penlington and Mortimer JJA), no – service as a person 'directly affected' under O.53 r.5(3) is sufficient – no rules regulate the title of judicial review applications – practical guide is that only parties against whom relief is sought should be named – Hereford Justices and St Helens Rent Tribunal cases only require service, not naming in the title – New Zealand authorities based on different statutory scheme and not persuasive – Godfrey JA dissenting, holding that under s.2 of the Supreme Court Ordinance, Cap. 4, a person served with notice became a 'party' and could properly be described as a respondent – appeal dismissed – dentist entitled to costs of the appeal – no order for costs in favour of the Investigating Committee which had no proper interest in the outcome.
Legal issues: Naming of persons directly affected as respondents in the title of judicial review proceedings
Outcome: Appeal dismissed (by majority: Penlington and Mortimer JJA; Godfrey JA dissenting)