Mary Carr & Anor, R (on the application of) v HM Assistant Coroner for North Wales (East and Central)

For judicial review purposes, a coroner for a Welsh local-authority area is not a “Welsh public body” under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 7.1A. Venue is instead governed by the general expectation that proceedings should be determined in the region with which the claim has its closest connection under Practice Direction 54C, paragraph 2.5. That expectation is flexible. A claim concerning a Welsh coroner may properly be heard in England where the circumstances establish a closer and legitimate connection with an English venue, including where the underlying inquest hearing took place there.

The claimants sought judicial review arising from an inquest into the death of Benjamin David Leonard. The inquest opened in 2018, and the hearing took place at the Civil Justice Centre in Manchester from 4 January 2024. The claims challenged the decision recorded in the Record of Inquest dated 22 February 2024.

The court determined whether the claims had crossed the arguability threshold, whether they had been brought promptly and within three months, and which venue was appropriate. The principal venue issue was whether the defendant coroner was a “Welsh public body” for the purposes of rule 7.1A.

1. The claims crossed the threshold of arguability and had been brought with appropriate promptness and within three months.

2. The defendant was not a “Welsh public body” for the purposes of Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 7.1A. No party had identified material supporting the contrary classification. Coroners for local-authority areas are judicially independent office-holders exercising powers derived from their coronial status.

3. The applicable venue principle was the general expectation in Practice Direction 54C, paragraph 2.5, that proceedings should be determined in the region with which the claim has its closest connection. That principle is not rigid.

4. The fact that the coroner’s area was in Wales did not require the claims to be heard in Wales. The underlying inquest hearing had, for good and legitimate reasons, been held in Manchester. In the very special circumstances of the case, Manchester was the appropriate venue, with support from the parties.

5. The court made directions for the claims to be dealt with expeditiously, while allowing for further consideration if that proved impossible from the parties’ perspectives.

First-instance determination of the appropriate venue for judicial review claims arising from an inquest. No appellate decision is stated in the judgment.