Mulholland, R (on the application of) v HM Coroner for St. Pancras

Where proceedings before the Administrative Court substantially overlap with proceedings before a Divisional Court, and the latter has a wider statutory power to order a new inquest on the basis of fresh evidence, an adjournment may be necessary to avoid duplication, inconsistent consideration of the issues and unnecessary costs. The court should consider the practical effect of parallel proceedings, not merely the jurisdiction available in the proceedings before it. Directions may require a fresh claim form identifying the new evidence, while permitting reliance on an existing claim form to the extent of the overlap.

The claimant sought judicial review of decisions made at an inquest into the death of Mr Bunkor. One issue concerned the deputy coroner’s refusal to adjourn to obtain medical evidence. The claimant had also sought the Attorney General’s fiat under section 13 of the Coroners Act, which would permit proceedings before a Divisional Court with power to consider fresh evidence more broadly and, where appropriate, order a new inquest.

The fiat had been granted shortly before the hearing. The central procedural issue was whether the judicial review should proceed or be adjourned so that the overlapping section 13 proceedings could be listed with it.

1. Adjournment granted. The judicial review was adjourned for listing before the Divisional Court together with the proceedings arising from the Attorney General’s fiat. Costs were reserved.
2. The court considered that it lacked power, when sitting otherwise than as a Divisional Court, to order a new inquest merely because fresh evidence had become available. The Divisional Court had a wider power to consider the medical evidence on that basis under section 13 of the Coroners Act.
3. The same medical evidence would nevertheless require consideration in the judicial review, including whether the deputy coroner had been entitled to refuse an adjournment, whether he had properly investigated the death, and whether any resulting relief should be granted. Proceeding immediately risked failure in the judicial review followed by overlapping argument before the Divisional Court.
4. The arguments for an adjournment were therefore clear and compelling. Avoiding duplicated proceedings and unnecessary costs was a proper reason to defer the hearing.
5. The section 13 proceedings were to be commenced by claim form stating the grounds and identifying the new evidence. The claim form could cross-refer to the existing claim form insofar as the issues overlapped. The court directed that it be filed within 21 days, subject to any later application for an extension.

Permission to apply for judicial review was granted on the papers on 10 April 2002. The judgment itself records no earlier determination on the merits.