Key Facts
- •Claimant (Ms. Harutunian) sought permission to challenge the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman's (PHSO) procedure in examining her complaint against the NHS Trust.
- •Two PHSO decisions were relevant: an initial decision on 8 July 2022 (July decision) and a refusal to review that decision on 18 August 2022 (August decision).
- •An initial application for judicial review was refused due to lack of promptness and exceeding the three-month time limit.
- •The Claimant renewed her application, initially stating the July decision was challenged and later amending it to the August decision.
- •The PHSO's Acknowledgment of Service was significantly late.
- •The Claimant acted as a litigant in person.
Legal Principles
Claims for judicial review must be filed promptly and within three months of the grounds arising.
Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR) 54.5.1
The court's overriding objective is to deal with cases justly and proportionately.
CPR Part 1.1
Litigants in person are expected to familiarise themselves with applicable rules.
Barton v Wright Hassall Ltd [2018] UKSC 12
Pursuing ADR doesn't suspend the promptness and three-month time limit for judicial review.
R v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC ex p Burkett [2001] Env LR 684
The court has discretion to extend time limits for good reason.
CPR r.3.1(2)
Outcomes
The court granted an extension of time for the Claimant's application for judicial review.
The Claimant reasonably believed she was following the PHSO's internal processes before initiating legal action. The delay was less than a month, and there was no prejudice to the Defendant. The July decision was considered the challenged decision for timeliness purposes.
The court set aside the previous refusal to grant permission for judicial review.
The initial refusal was based solely on the time limit issue, which was subsequently addressed by the extension.