David Pojur Represents HM Senior Coroner In Important Divisional Court Hearing

David Pojur recently appeared in the Divisional Court representing HM Senior Coroner in an important case on the Attorney General’s Fiat, Inquests and Civil Procedure Rules.

These proceedings “had anything but a charmed life,” with “fundamental problems” from start to finish.

The Divisional Court (Lord Justice Coulson, Mrs Justice Cutts) considered the Attorney General’s Fiat and quashed a 1995 ‘inquisition’ concerning the death of a man who was experiencing mental health difficulties. He was detained, taken to a psychiatric unit, escaped, and was later found deceased. A fresh inquest was ordered as necessary in the interests of justice (s13 Coroners Act 1988).

A key consideration was the Coroner’s agreement to the Fiat and fresh inquest. The Court noted that this inquest would likely engage Article 2 ECHR, provide a more detailed Record of Inquest, and focus on issues surrounding the police detention and subsequent psychiatric hospital detention.

Procedural Issues
– There is a strict six-week time limit from the granting of the Fiat to issuing a claim form under Part 8.
– The claim form was wrongly filed in Bristol, and an unsealed claim form was served on the defendant.
– The court had not issued the claim form, so it was later refiled, but the claimant’s solicitors were out of time and sought relief from sanctions.
– The sealed claim form was refiled in March and served on the defendant in June.

The KBD Master transferred the case from KBD to the Administrative Court via Cardiff and then London. However, the Court held that the application to issue out of time was misconceived.

Relief from Sanctions (RFS) did not apply to CPR Part 8, and the law was clear:
– An unsealed claim form served in time is not valid service.
– Retrospective service is not permitted.
– Could service be dispensed with under CPR 6.16(1)? No.

The Court was also critical of HMCTS delays, but this did not excuse the procedural failures.

A Defendant’s Advantage?
In many cases, a defendant might seek to gain an advantage from service issues—but not in this instance.

Ultimately, procedure should not triumph over substance. The correct remedy was to grant an extension of time for serving the sealed claim form. The Master had no jurisdiction to consider relief from sanctions, and a transfer does not imply the granting of RFS.

The Final Outcome
After a detailed tour of the CPR and relevant case law, the solution was clear:
Grant an extension of time, quash the ‘inquisition’, and order a fresh inquest.

The judgement can be found here.

For more information, or to instruct David Pojur, please contact Director of Clerking, David Wright.