Re Racal Communications Ltd [1981] AC 374

House of Lords

Facts: A High Court judge refused to authorize the inspection of a company’s books under the Companies Act, stating that the decision was “not appealable.” The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed, arguing that the decision was based on an error of law, not on the facts.

Issue: Whether the decision of the High Court judge, described as "not appealable," could be reviewed on appeal due to an error of law.

Held: The House of Lords held that the phrase "is not appealable" meant exactly that—no appeal could be made on either the facts or the law. The Court of Appeal’s decision to review the case was incorrect.

Judicial Statement: Lord Diplock emphasized that decisions explicitly stated as “not appealable” could not be reviewed for errors of law. This clarified that statutory provisions barring appeals precluded both factual and legal appeals.