Gamesys Operations Limited, R (on the application of) v HM Senior Coroner for London Inner South

A coroner has a broad discretion to determine the scope of an inquisitorial investigation and the witnesses, including expert witnesses, required to conduct it. The Administrative Court will intervene only where the decision is not properly open to the coroner on Wednesbury principles. An expert’s interest in the subject matter, professional views or prior connection with a party is not automatically disqualifying. The relevant question is whether the circumstances indicate a personal conflict capable of influencing the expert’s opinion, assessed in the context of fairness, the inquisitorial nature of the inquest and the alternatives available. A challenge to a case-management decision will usually be premature while the inquest remains ongoing, and full reasons for accepting or rejecting expert evidence may properly be given later.

The claimant, an online gambling operator, sought permission to challenge the Coroner’s decision to appoint Professor Dame Clare Gerada as an expert witness on gambling disorder at the inquest into Mr Lee Adams’s death. The claimant alleged that her public views, professional roles, funding connections, prior contact with the family and connection with the family’s solicitors made her unsuitable or created apparent bias. The Coroner had also appointed the claimant’s proposed expert, Dr Frazer, and had invited submissions on the letters of instruction.

Permission had been refused on the papers. The renewed application raised rationality, relevant considerations, bias and inadequate reasons, together with the Coroner’s contention that the challenge was premature.

Application refused. Permission to apply for judicial review was refused.

1. The Coroner was conducting an inquisitorial investigation and enjoyed a broad discretion, or area of judgment, over its scope and over the witnesses and experts to call. The court’s role was limited to asking whether the decision was one that was properly open to the Coroner on Wednesbury principles. The threshold for intervention was very high.
2. The Coroner had conducted an exhaustive and balanced selection process. He had considered the competing submissions and relevant concerns about Professor Gerada’s independence and impartiality. The decision to appoint both Professor Gerada and Dr Frazer was rationally open to him, particularly because their expertise and professional backgrounds differed.
3. Fairness was the essential touchstone. Expert independence could be relevant where the facts disclosed a genuine concern, but an expert’s interest in the subject matter was not automatically a bar. Conflicts ordinarily arose where personal interests might influence the opinion. The connections with the family and Leigh Day did not arguably establish such a conflict, and the Coroner had safeguards to confine the evidence to the relevant causative issues.
4. In civil litigation, the correct approach was that identified in Fields and R (Factortame) v Transport Secretary (No. 8): an expert’s interest should be disclosed and assessed through case management, having regard to the alternatives and the overriding objective. The inquisitorial context gave the Coroner an even broader evaluative discretion.
5. The challenge was premature. It was rare for the Administrative Court to intervene while a coroner’s process was continuing, particularly in relation to case management. The Coroner was not required at that stage to provide full written reasons for inviting the experts; reasons for accepting or rejecting their evidence could be given later.

First-instance judicial review decision. Permission to apply for judicial review had previously been refused on the papers by a Deputy High Court Judge on 28 November 2024. The renewed application was refused by the Administrative Court.