Stephanie Wills, R (on the application of) v The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

An Ombudsman’s statutory function is to investigate alleged maladministration, not to substitute its view for the merits of an underlying discretionary decision. The Administrative Court may intervene only where the Ombudsman’s decision is irrational, fails to apply the standard it adopted, or otherwise exceeds the limited supervisory jurisdiction. Disagreement with an underlying investigation, or proof that a better process might have been followed, does not establish maladministration or irrationality. An Ombudsman may adopt a review threshold requiring reasons or new evidence indicating that its substantive decision may be wrong. Judicial review claims must also comply with the requirements of promptness and the applicable time limit, and relief may be refused for undue delay where it would harm good administration.

The claimant challenged decisions of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman concerning her complaint about the Health and Safety Executive’s handling of her husband’s death following an electrical incident near her home. The Ombudsman’s substantive decision of 20 May 2024 found no maladministration in the HSE’s decision not to investigate further. On 6 June 2024, it declined to review that decision because the claimant had shown no reason or new evidence indicating that it might be wrong.

The claim alleged irrationality and sought mandatory and quashing orders. The court considered both decisions, although the pleaded challenge principally concerned the refusal to review. It also considered whether the claim was out of time, whether it had been brought promptly, and whether an extension should be granted.

1. Scope of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, the Ombudsman had discretion whether to investigate and could not question the merits of a decision taken without maladministration in the exercise of an administrative discretion. Its issue was whether the HSE had acted with maladministration, not whether the HSE’s conclusion was correct or could have been reached by a better process.
2. Supervisory standard. The principles identified in Rapp applied. Maladministration concerns the manner in which a decision is reached or a discretion exercised. The Ombudsman determines the standard it will apply and the consequences of breach. The court may intervene if that standard is unreasonable, is not applied, or the conclusion is irrational, but it must read the Ombudsman’s decision fairly and as a whole.
3. Application to the substantive decision. The Ombudsman had questioned the HSE about the evidence, visual measurement of clearances, risk assessments, photographs, regulatory standards and the discrepancy between the HSE inspector’s and UKPN engineer’s views. It was entitled to accept the HSE’s technical and evaluative conclusions. Mere disagreement, competing evidence, or an allegedly imperfect investigation did not make the Ombudsman’s finding irrational.
4. Application to the review decision. The Ombudsman was entitled to require reasons or new evidence suggesting that its substantive decision might be wrong. The claimant’s application reargued the underlying dispute but did not identify material evidence or reasons demonstrating maladministration. Permission was therefore refused on the merits.
5. Time and discretion. The challenge to the substantive decision was out of time and there was no good reason for an extension. The claim was also brought without sufficient promptness. Permission was refused under rule 54.5 and section 31(6) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, because undue delay and the resulting detriment to good administration made relief inappropriate. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs, assessed at £3,500.

The judgment was a first-instance decision of the Administrative Court. It records that an earlier judicial review claim concerning the Ombudsman’s 11 May 2021 decision was refused permission by HHJ Auerbach, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, on 27 June 2022.