The High Court has refused a judicial review challenge by Fitzwilton Limited, Goulding Limited and Rennicks Sign Manufacturing over a tribunal inquiry into a £30,000 payment matter involving Rennicks and Ray Burke.
The applicants argued that the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments had failed to meet a mandatory deadline for deciding which additional matters would proceed to public hearings. They sought a declaration that a public hearing concerning the Fitzwilton £30,000 payment was outside the tribunal’s powers and breached their constitutional rights, along with orders to quash or prevent the hearing.
Under amended terms of reference, the tribunal was required to decide by 1 May 2005 which additional matters would proceed to public hearing and to record those decisions in writing. The applicants said a list signed by the tribunal members on 28 April 2005 did not clearly record such a decision for the payment matter. The tribunal said its members had considered the matter before it was added to the list and decided it should proceed to a public hearing.
Mr Justice Feeney said the written decision was a mandatory prerequisite to a public hearing on an additional matter. However, he found that the 28 April list met that requirement. Its heading identified it as a list of additional matters prepared pursuant to paragraph J(2), and the listed item was “Fitzwilton-MMDS-Payment to Ray Burke by Rennicks”. The judgment said no particular wording was required, provided the decision was made and recorded in writing.
The applicants also relied on wording in the list referring to matters that “may” proceed and to decisions remaining subject to review. The court read those passages as referring to possible future decisions about issues within listed matters and to the tribunal’s review powers under a separate paragraph of its terms of reference. It concluded that the list recorded the decision to send the listed matters to public hearing by the deadline.
The court therefore found that the tribunal had complied with paragraph J(2) and declined the judicial review application. It did not need to address the tribunal’s alternative arguments about discretionary considerations in the event of non-compliance.