Pearlman v Keepers and Governors of Harrow School [1979] Q.B. 56

Court: Court of Appeal

Facts: The County Courts Act provided that the decision of the county court as to whether works constituted an ‘improvement’ within the meaning of the Act should be ‘final and conclusive.’ A tenant claimed that the installation of a central heating system constituted an “improvement.” The county court judge ruled that it did not. The tenant then applied to the Divisional Court by way of judicial review to quash the judge’s decision.

Issue: Did the Court of Appeal have jurisdiction to quash the county court judge's order based on an error of law?

Held: The county court judge’s order is to be quashed. The Court of Appeal held that the judge had made an error of law in concluding that the central heating installation did not constitute an improvement. Consequently, this error deprived the judge of jurisdiction, which meant that the original decision could not stand. The Court emphasized that the County Courts Act's provision of finality did not apply when a judge erred in law, thereby allowing for judicial review in such cases.

Key Judicial Statement: Lord Denning MR (majority) stated that the installation did amount to a structural addition; by holding otherwise, the judge made an error of law and wrongly deprived himself of jurisdiction.

💡Leveluplaw: reinforced the principle from Anisminic that any error of law goes to jurisdiction, extending this principle to county courts.