Alina Harutunian v Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Judicial review claims must be brought promptly and, in any event, within three months of the grounds first arising. Pursuing an internal review or alternative dispute resolution does not automatically suspend that requirement. However, where a claimant reasonably pursues a means of resolving the dispute without litigation, and there is no material prejudice, the court may extend time. Judicial review remains a remedy of last resort. A litigant in person is expected to familiarise themselves with the applicable procedural rules.

The claimant sought permission to judicially review decisions of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman concerning its investigation of a complaint about an NHS Trust’s care of her late mother. The claim form identified the Ombudsman’s decision of 18 August 2022, said to have been filed within three months. The defendant contended that the impugned decision was an earlier decision dated 8 July 2022 and that the claim was out of time.

The court treated the July decision as the decision under challenge for deciding whether to extend time. The central issue was whether the claimant’s pursuit of the Ombudsman’s internal review process and proposed alternative dispute resolution provided good reason for delay.

1. Extension of time granted. The court extended time for service of the application for permission for judicial review to 17 November 2023. The earlier refusal of permission, based solely on limitation, was set aside.
2. Under CPR 54.5.1, a judicial review claim must be filed promptly and in any event no later than three months after the grounds first arose. The court’s discretion to extend time under CPR 3.1(2) must be exercised consistently with the overriding objective and the importance of procedural compliance.
3. Pursuing alternative dispute resolution or an internal review does not suspend the promptness or three-month requirements. Nevertheless, because judicial review is a remedy of last resort, the court may enlarge time where a claimant expeditiously pursues a reasonable non-litigious means of resolving the dispute and that process fails.
4. The claimant acted reasonably in following the process identified by the Ombudsman. There was no identifiable prejudice to the administration of justice or the defendant. The delay was objectively explained and the short extension required was proportionate.
5. The merits could not yet be assessed because the July decision had not been filed. Further directions were made for the claim’s progress.