Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2013] All ER (D) 141 (Apr)
Neutral Citation: [2013] EWHC 898 (Admin)
Court: Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court
Judge:

Sir John Thomas P and Mr Justice Simon

Representation David Lamming (instructed by Horsey Lightly Fynn) for the claimant.
  Ethu Crorie (instructed by the solicitor for the Borough of Runnymede) for the authority.
Judgment Dates: 18 April 2013

Catchwords

Food and drugs - Food hygiene - Regulations for protection of public health - Claimant company operating food business at pub - Respondent authority carrying out routine food hygiene inspection - Authority discovering contraventions of relevant regulations and kitchen requiring deep cleaning - Authority deciding to prosecute claimant - Claimant applying to stay proceedings as abuse of process - District judge refusing application and claimant challenging decision by way of judicial review - Whether claimant able to challenge decision to prosecute other than through abuse of process application - Whether authority failing to have regard to own Environmental Protection Enforcement Policy - Food Hygiene (England) Regulations 2006, .

The Case

Food and drugs Food hygiene. The claimant company operated a food business at a pub. Following the carrying out of a routine food hygiene inspection by the respondent authority, during which contraventions of the Food Hygiene (England) Regulations 2006 (the Regulations) were found and the kitchen was found to require deep cleaning, the authority decided to prosecute the claimant, which applied to stay the proceedings as an abuse of process. The district judge refused the application and the claimant challenged that decision by way of judicial review proceedings. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claim, held that, on the totality of the evidence, it was clear that the authority had fully complied with its Environmental Protection Enforcement Policy and there had been clear, strong evidence of a serious breach of the Regulations by the claimant which had justified prosecution.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.