Murray, R (on the application of) v Parliamentary Commissioner For Administration

The Parliamentary Ombudsman has no power to investigate alleged maladministration in his own office. The exclusion also covers complaints concerning the conduct of civil proceedings before a court. Proceedings remain proceedings for this purpose even if they were abortive because the court lacked jurisdiction or the proceedings were incompetent. Permission to appeal should be refused where there is no real prospect of success and no other compelling reason to grant permission.

Mr Murray sought permission to appeal from the refusal of Stanley Burnton J to grant permission for judicial review. His complaint concerned an alleged delay by the Treasury Solicitor and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in deciding whether to write off costs arising from earlier litigation and a House of Lords petition. The Commissioner declined to investigate, relying on the exclusions in Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. Forbes J had first considered the application on paper, and Stanley Burnton J rejected it at an oral renewal. The central issue was whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction, particularly where the House of Lords proceedings had been incompetent.

1. Application refused. Lord Justice Rix held that there was no real prospect of success on the proposed appeal and no other compelling reason to grant permission.
2. Where the substance of a complaint is alleged maladministration by the Parliamentary Ombudsman himself, the Ombudsman has no power to investigate his own office under Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.
3. The exclusion in paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 for the conduct of civil proceedings before any court also applied if the complaint was formally directed against the Treasury Solicitor. The relevant enquiry concerned costs arising from litigation and a petition to the House of Lords.
4. The fact that the House of Lords petition was ultimately regarded as incompetent and inadmissible did not take it outside the meaning of proceedings. Proceedings may be commenced and dealt with, sometimes at substantial cost, even though they later prove incompetent or the court lacks jurisdiction.
5. Rix LJ further observed that, even if the jurisdictional objection had failed, the alleged delay concerned approximately £121 of costs which had been written off, caused no prejudice, and had already resulted in an apology from the Ombudsman. The alleged conflict or appearance of bias arising from the Treasury Solicitor representing the Ombudsman was also considered to disclose no arguable basis for relief.

Order: application for permission to appeal refused.

• High Court, Administrative Court: Forbes J refused permission on paper. Stanley Burnton J, on renewal, refused permission to apply for judicial review on 13 August 2001.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lord Justice Rix refused permission to appeal.