Reverend Bernard Charles Randall, R (on the application of) v Clergy Discipline Commission & Anor

Valid service of a sealed claim form is essential to found the court’s jurisdiction over a defendant. An unsealed claim form cannot be corrected under CPR 3.10. An extension of time for service under CPR 7.6 requires all reasonable steps to have been taken and a prompt application; prejudice, public interest and merits do not replace those requirements.

Judicial review claims must be filed promptly, with the three-month period operating as a longstop. In clergy disciplinary proceedings, misconduct under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 requires an act or omission by the individual concerned and is subject to an implicit seriousness threshold. The President must consider whether there is a case to answer warranting referral, applying the statutory framework, rules and Code of Practice.

The claimant sought permission to apply for judicial review of the President of Tribunals’ decision under section 17(4) of the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 that there was no case to answer on his misconduct complaint against a bishop.

Permission had been refused on the papers and was renewed. The defendants raised objections concerning late filing, invalid service of the claim form, failure to sign the statement of truth and failure to serve the renewal notice. The claimant also challenged the President’s reasoning on misconduct, irrationality and adequacy of reasons.

The central issues were whether the court had jurisdiction, whether time should be extended, and whether the proposed grounds had a realistic prospect of success.

1. Jurisdiction and service. The claim form was not validly served because the copies served on the defendants and interested party were unsealed and, in some instances, unsigned. Service of a valid claim form founds the court’s jurisdiction. The claimant had not taken all reasonable steps to comply with the service rules and had not applied promptly for an extension. The court therefore had no jurisdiction, and the claim form had to be set aside.
2. The absence of prejudice from receipt of an unsealed claim form, the public interest and the merits were not relevant to the requirements in CPR 7.6(3). The claimant’s late application for an extension and relief from sanctions could not satisfy those requirements.
3. Promptness. Filing within three months did not establish promptness. Promptness was the primary requirement and the three-month period was a longstop. The claim was not filed promptly and delay had caused administrative prejudice. If jurisdiction had existed, however, the court would have extended time because of the importance of the issues and the absence of another effective remedy.
4. Renewal notice. If jurisdiction had existed, the failure to serve the renewal notice would have been treated as serious and significant, caused by solicitor carelessness, but relief would have been granted because preventing pursuit of the claim would have been disproportionate in all the circumstances.
5. Permission grounds. Even if the claim form had not been set aside, permission would have been refused. Misconduct under section 8(1) of the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 concerns an act or omission by the person complained of. The statutory scheme and Code of Practice also require consideration of whether alleged misconduct is sufficiently serious for referral. The President applied the correct test and was entitled to conclude that there was no case to answer.
6. The President was performing a different function from the earlier reviewer under section 11(4). She was not bound by the earlier review decisions and was not required to explain any disagreement with them. The Designated Officer’s report was confidential, and the reasoned decision under challenge, rather than that report, was the relevant decision for review.
7. The challenges to factual findings, irrationality and reasons disclosed no arguable public law error. Judicial review was not an appeal on the facts, and the high threshold for irrationality was not met.

First-instance renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review. Permission had previously been refused on the papers by a Deputy Judge of the High Court on 5 August 2024. The Administrative Court dismissed the renewed application because valid service had not been effected and, alternatively, concluded that permission would have been refused on the substantive grounds.