Key Facts
- •Camila Batmanghelidjh initiated judicial review proceedings against the Charity Commission concerning a report on Keeping Kids Company.
- •Ms. Batmanghelidjh passed away, and Michael-Karim Kerman, a joint executor of her estate and former senior employee of the charity, applied for substitution as claimant.
- •The proceedings challenge the legality of the Charity Commission's report, alleging evidential flaws and bias.
- •The report covered various aspects of Keeping Kids Company's management, some of which had been previously addressed in disqualification proceedings.
Legal Principles
Power to substitute a claimant in public law proceedings.
CPR 19.2(4)(b) and inherent jurisdiction of the court.
Requirement for standing in public law cases (sufficient interest).
Section 31(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
Sufficient identity of interest between the original and substitute claimant.
Underhill J in R(River Thames Society) v First Secretary of State [2006] EWHC 2892 (Admin) and R(SDR) v Bristol City Council [2012] EWHC 859 (Admin).
Outcomes
Mr. Kerman's application to be substituted as claimant was allowed.
The court found Mr. Kerman had sufficient interest to meet the standing requirement and that a sufficient identity of interest existed between him and Ms. Batmanghelidjh, given her statement indicating she brought the claim partly for the benefit of those associated with the charity. The court also found that the passage of time and withdrawal of the report from the Charity Commission website did not present an obstacle to the fair determination of the issues.