Mahajan, R (on the application of) v Local Government Ombudsman

A court reviewing an Ombudsman’s decision must not substitute its own view on the merits for that of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman’s function is to determine whether maladministration caused injustice, not to act as an appeal body from the original decision-maker. A decision to discontinue an investigation is lawful where the Ombudsman has identified faults but reasonably concluded that they were not significant and caused no injustice. A judicial review claim founded on serious allegations unsupported by evidence may properly be characterised as scandalous, vexatious and an abuse of process. Where no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or unlawful exercise of discretion is shown, permission to apply for judicial review must be refused.

The claimant sought permission to challenge the Local Government Ombudsman’s decision to discontinue an investigation into his complaint about an appeal panel’s refusal to offer his daughter a place at Kingsbury High School. Permission had been refused on the papers by Stanley Burnton J on 9 October 2006, and the claimant renewed the application before Mr Justice Munby.

The claimant alleged unlawful discrimination arising from a sibling-preference policy, errors of law, inadequate investigation and an unlawful exercise of discretion. He also made serious allegations against the Ombudsman, including dishonesty and corruption. The central issues were whether any arguable legal error or unlawful discrimination had been shown and whether the Ombudsman had lawfully exercised the discretion conferred by section 26(10) of the Local Government Act 1974.

1. Renewed application dismissed. The claimant’s allegations of unlawful discrimination and legal misdirection had no arguable basis. The material contained no evidence supporting the serious allegations made against the Ombudsman. To that extent, the claim was scandalous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court.
2. The Ombudsman’s statutory function was to consider whether maladministration had caused injustice. He was not entitled, and was not required, to substitute his own view for that of the Appeal Panel. There was no appeal on the merits to the Ombudsman from the Panel’s decision.
3. The Ombudsman had found certain faults in the handling of the claimant’s appeal, including fault by the governing body and the Appeal Panel, but had concluded that there were no significant faults likely to have affected the outcome and that neither the claimant nor his daughter had suffered injustice. The decision to discontinue the investigation was therefore a lawful exercise of discretion. The court was not entitled to substitute its own decision for that of the Ombudsman.
4. The complaint based on article 14 of the European Convention and section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 was devoid of arguable substance. The court also noted that the proceedings appeared incapable of serving their stated objective, since the claimant’s daughter was already being educated at a school accepted by her residential parent.
5. The costs order of £1,200 made by Stanley Burnton J stood. The Ombudsman had liberty to apply for any further costs. The claimant’s application for permission to appeal was refused insofar as the court had jurisdiction, and any stay of execution was refused because there was no substantive order requiring execution and no merit-based justification for a stay.

Permission to apply for judicial review was refused on the papers by Stanley Burnton J on 9 October 2006. The claimant renewed the application before the Administrative Court, which dismissed it. The court stated that any further application should be made directly to the Court of Appeal.