Patrick Martins, R (on the application of) v Central Family Court

1. The Claimant has applied for judicial review of an Occupation Order made by HHJ Oliver on 8 July 2024 in the context of extensive Family Court proceedings involving a dispute between the Claimant and the first interested party and concerning the welfare of their young son. Many of the submissions which I have heard relate to the dispute more generally, rather than to the specific issues which arise on this application for judicial review.

2. Formally, the matter comes before me in this way. On 27 November 2024 McGowan J made an order refusing the application for judicial review, interim relief and directions and the Claimant has sought an oral reconsideration of that decision. Clearly, before any question of interim relief or directions arises, I have to consider whether I am persuaded that I should grant permission to apply for judicial review.

3. I pointed out to the Claimant in the course of argument that whatever may be the merits of the points which he makes in relation to matters which have been dealt with in the Family Court, his application to this Court faces two formidable obstacles. The first is that he had an alternative remedy, namely an application for permission to appeal against HHJ Oliver’s order, and indeed the Claimant invoked that remedy and the outcome of that process was that on 24 July 2024 Henke J refused the Claimant’s application for permission to appeal and certified it as being totally without merit.

4. The second obstacle which the Claimant’s case faces, linked the first, is that it is only in very rare cases that this Court will interfere by way of judicial review in a decision taken in the County Court. In response to that, the Claimant has drawn attention to certain matters which he says have only come to light relatively recently. The first is that he says that it was only two weeks ago that he finally received a copy of an email which was relied on by the interested party at the hearing before HHJ Oliver as evidence that she was about to be evicted from the property she was then occupying.

5. The Claimant says that, now that he has seen this email, it can be seen that it is a forgery. That, however, is, I note, a submission which he made to HHJ Oliver, as appears from the note of judgment which was agreed and which was presented to Henke J. Reading from that note, it says: “Ms Lambert tells me the mother is two months in arrears with rent which is about £1,850pcm, and she had been told she has to vacate by the end of July. The father doesn’t accept that. He believes the person from whom the mother is renting is a friend, and it’s therefore a false arrangement.”

6. In any event, if there is merit in the point that the Claimant now has new evidence which was not reasonably available before HHJ Oliver, or indeed before Henke J, it seems to me that he has an alternative remedy available, one to which he has himself referred in his own documents, namely an application for the reopening of the appeal.

7. The same applies to the second point which the Claimant relies on, when he says that the financial disclosure which the interested party gave in advance of the hearing before HHJ Oliver was incomplete and that he now has evidence of this in the form of bank statements which were not disclosed in the proceedings before HHJ Oliver, but which were subsequently disclosed in January 2025, and he has taken me in particular to statements for an account with Revolut which show income being received at various stages in 2024, in particular, from someone called M Ferreira whom the father asserts is a sex worker who has some connection with the interested party. Again, in my judgment the appropriate remedy, if it is appropriate for a remedy to be granted at all, is by way of an application reopening the application for permission to appeal.

8. Accordingly, I consider that this is a case which is governed by the principle that, where there is an alternative remedy available, judicial review is not appropriate and in any event, having regard to the nature of the issues, which are not such as would satisfy the test for an exceptional case in which the Court should interfere with a decision of the County Court, it is not a case in which the Claimant should be given permission to apply for judicial review, so for both of those reasons I dismiss the application for permission to apply for judicial review and, consequently, the applications for interim relief and for directions. This Transcript has been approved by the Judge. The Transcription Agency hereby certifies that the above is an accurate and complete recording of the proceedings or part thereof. The Transcription Agency, 24-28 High Street, Hythe, Kent, CT21 5AT Tel: 01303 230038 Email: [email protected]