Andrews, R (On the Application Of) v Parliamentary And Health Service Ombudsman

An ombudsman has a broad discretion to determine how an investigation is conducted, including its scope, the information obtained and the enquiries made. A challenge to that exercise requires more than disagreement with the ombudsman’s conclusions. Judicial review is available only where a properly formulated public law error, such as procedural unfairness or irrationality, is shown. The court recognised that the question of maladministration falls within the ombudsman’s province and that the threshold for establishing an unreasonable exercise of discretion is high.

The claimant sought judicial review of a review decision made by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman on 3 February 2016. The decision followed an earlier investigation into complaints about the care and treatment of the claimant’s late aunt. Permission had been refused on the papers by John Howell QC. The claimant renewed the challenge, alleging procedural unfairness and irrationality, and contending that the complaints warranted a more thorough investigation.

1. The application for permission to pursue judicial review was refused.
2. The ombudsman enjoys a broad discretion as to the conduct of an investigation. The procedure is such as the ombudsman considers appropriate in the circumstances, and the ombudsman may obtain information and make such enquiries as she thinks fit.
3. The question of maladministration is for the ombudsman. The court will not substitute its view for the ombudsman’s assessment merely because the claimant disagrees with the conclusions or considers that the investigation should have been more thorough.
4. The threshold for showing that the ombudsman exercised her discretion unreasonably is high. The grounds advanced amounted principally to disagreement with the ombudsman’s conclusions and did not disclose a properly formulated public law error based on procedural unfairness or irrationality.
5. The court upheld the costs order made in the written permission order. The costs were considered reasonable and proportionate.

Permission to pursue judicial review was refused on the papers by John Howell QC on 20 June 2016. The Administrative Court subsequently considered the renewed application and refused permission.