Pritchard, R (on the application of) v Coroner for Oxfordshire

A later judicial decision changing the understood legal position does not, by itself, justify extending time to challenge an earlier decision made on the basis of the law then accepted. The court must give substantial weight to finality, particularly where the decision concerns a coroner’s inquest intended to provide closure. Reopening will require exceptional or very compelling circumstances, including circumstances sufficient to overcome prejudice to good administration and affected third parties. Authorities concerning restitution of money paid under a mistake of law address a different situation and do not govern a belated challenge to an earlier adjudicative decision.

The claimant sought permission for judicial review of the Oxfordshire coroner’s decision in October 2005 to conduct an inquest into his son’s death on the narrower question of how he met his death, rather than the broader question of the circumstances in which he met his death. The inquest was held without a jury on 11 October 2005.

The claim was filed on 8 August 2008, nearly three years after the challenged decision. The claimant relied principally on R (Smith) v Assistant Deputy Coroner for Oxfordshire, [2008] EWHC 694 (Admin), which had been handed down in April 2008 and was under appeal. The central issue was whether the later decision, and the resulting argument that the coroner had applied the wrong legal test, justified extending time.

1. Permission refused. The application was brought nearly three years after the decision under challenge and was therefore substantially out of time.
2. The ordinary principles governing extensions of time did not justify relief merely because a later decision of a higher court had altered the previously understood legal basis on which an earlier decision had been made. There is a powerful public interest in the finality of litigation. The residual power to reopen final determinations is exercised very sparingly and only to avoid real injustice in exceptional circumstances.
3. The court accepted that, if R (Smith) v Assistant Deputy Coroner for Oxfordshire, [2008] EWHC 694 (Admin) was correct, the claimant could arguably show that the coroner had adopted an erroneous approach. That did not provide a good reason to extend time. Any point of general importance was likely to be considered in the pending appeal in Smith.
4. There were powerful public-policy reasons against reopening the inquest. A coroner’s inquest is intended to provide closure. The inquest had been held jointly with proceedings concerning two other soldiers who died in the same incident. Reopening one inquest could undo the closure achieved by the other families and require witnesses to relive traumatic events years later. These considerations created a clear detriment to good administration and required very compelling reasons before reopening could be justified.
5. Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council, [1999] 2 AC 349, and Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group plc v Inland Revenue Commissioners, [2007] 1 AC 558, concerned recovery of money paid under a mistake of law. They did not govern a challenge to an earlier court or tribunal decision made on a legal basis later shown to be wrong.

First-instance judicial review application. The judgment itself states that the decision in R (Smith) v Assistant Deputy Coroner for Oxfordshire, [2008] EWHC 694 (Admin), was under appeal, but records no appellate decision in this claim.