By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

part of decision – makers and for being able to rely upon those decisions as a sure basisfor dealing in the market. It further illustrates an awareness that such decision affect avery wide public which will not be parties to the dispute and that their interests have to betaken into account as much as those of the immediate disputants.In the context of judicial review it must also be remembered that it is not evenpossible to apply for relief until leave has been obtained. The purpose of this provisionwas explained by Lord Diplock in Reg. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners. Ex parteNational Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd (1982) A.C 617,642 -643:“The need for leave to start proceedings for remedies in public law is not new. It appliedpreviously to applications for prerogative orders though not to civil actions forinjunctions or declarations. Its purpose is to prevent the time of the court being wasted bybusybodies with misguided or trivial complaints of administrative error, and to removethe uncertainty in which public officers and authorities might be left as to whether theycould safely proceed with administrative action while proceedings for judicial review ofit were actually pending even though misconceived.”In many cases of judicial review where the time scale is far more extended than inthe financial markets, the decision maker who learns that someone is seeking leave tochallenge his decision may well seek to preserve the status quo meanwhile and, inparticular, may not seek to enforce his decision pending a consideration of the matter bythe court. If leave is granted, the court has the necessary authority to make ordersdesigned to achieve this result, but usually the decision – maker will give undertakings inlieu.All this is but good administrative practice. However, against the background of the timescales of the financial market, the courts would not expect the panel or those who shouldcomply with its decisions to act similarly. In that context the panel and those affectedshould treat its decisions as valid and binding, unless and until they are set aside.Above all they should ignore any application for leave to apply of which they becomeaware, since to do otherwise would enable such applications to be used as a mere ploy intake-over battles which would be a serious abuse of the process of the court and could notbe adequately penalised by awards of costs.If this course is followed and the application for leave is refused, no harm willhave been done. If the application is granted, it will be for the court to decide whether tomake any and, if so, what orders to preserve the status quo. In doing so it will have regardto the likely outcome of the proceedings which will depend partly upon the facts as theyappear from the information at that time available to the court, but also in part upon thepublic administrative purpose which the panel is designed to serve. This is somewhatspecial.165