Chaudhari, R (on the application of) v Walthamstow Coroners Court

A challenge to an inquest verdict brought more than seven years after the event requires truly exceptional circumstances. A wholly new and highly significant piece of evidence might justify permission, but the evidence must be considered in its full context. Evidence which does not support negligence or causation cannot justify reopening the verdict. The public interest in finality is particularly important in relation to sensitive inquest verdicts, and repeated hopeless claims may justify protective measures against further litigation.

The claimant, the aunt of a child who died in 2000, sought permission to apply for judicial review of a coroner’s 2001 verdict that the death resulted from natural causes arising from congenital abnormalities. She relied on a 2004 medical report which acknowledged an excessive dosage of ranitidine but concluded that there was no evidence of genuine negligence and that the drug error had not caused harm or death. The claimant had previously made two unsuccessful judicial review claims concerning the same matter. The central issues were whether the delay could be overcome by exceptional circumstances and whether the medical report provided a basis for reopening the verdict.

1. Permission refused. The renewed application was made more than seven years after the inquest. The public interest in finality of litigation meant that permission could be granted only in truly exceptional circumstances.
2. A wholly new and highly significant piece of evidence might constitute such an exceptional circumstance. The claimant’s reliance on the 2004 report could not do so. Even if the report were treated as starting the relevant period, the claim was approximately four years late.
3. The report had to be read as a whole. Although it identified an excessive dosage of ranitidine, the professor regarded this as an error rather than a conspiracy, found no evidence supporting genuine negligence, and concluded that the drug error had not caused injury or death. There was no independent medical evidence contradicting those conclusions.
4. The report therefore provided no basis for reopening the coroner’s verdict. It reinforced, rather than undermined, the conclusion that the child had died from congenital abnormalities.
5. The claim was certified as wholly without merit. The court warned that any further attempt to relitigate the matter could lead to a civil restraint order. No order as to costs was made, although the court warned that significant costs could be imposed if further unsuccessful litigation were pursued.

The judgment records that two earlier claims for judicial review concerning the inquest had been refused. The present court refused the renewed application for permission and certified the claim as wholly without merit.