Bradley & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions & Ors

Bradley & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions & Ors

The Secretary of State is not legally bound by the Parliamentary Ombudsman's findings of maladministration and may reject them provided the rejection is not irrational. In this case, the Secretary of State's rejection of the first finding of maladministration (in relation to the PEC 3 leaflet) was irrational and must be quashed. However, the Secretary of State's rejection of the Ombudsman's findings on causation of financial loss and the third finding of maladministration (regarding the 2002 MFR change) was not irrational and stands. The Ombudsman's findings are not binding absent judicial review, and the proper forum for enforcing Ombudsman findings is Parliament, not the courts.

Parties
Claimants/respondents/cross Appellants: Henry Bradley, Robin Duncan, Andrew Parr, Thomas Waugh (and others); Defendant/appellant/cross Respondent: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Interested Party: Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration; Intervener: HM Attorney General (on behalf of the Speaker of the House of Commons)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (administrative Law) / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Secretary of State's appeal dismissed; Claimants' appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part.
Legal Topics
Ombudsman Findings, Maladministration, Judicial Review Standards, Ministerial Accountability, Causation of Injustice, Remedies for Maladministration
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Pensions Law Ombudsman Findings Maladministration Judicial Review Standards Ministerial Accountability Causation of Injustice +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Bradley, Robin Duncan, Andrew Parr, Thomas Waugh (and others)

Claimants/respondents/cross Appellants

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Defendant/appellant/cross Respondent

Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration

Interested Party

HM Attorney General (on behalf of the Speaker of the House of Commons)

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (administrative Law) / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are findings of maladministration by the Parliamentary Ombudsman binding on Ministers absent judicial review?
  2. 2 Was the Secretary of State's rejection of the Ombudsman's findings irrational?
  3. 3 Did maladministration cause injustice to pension scheme members?

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State is not legally bound by the Parliamentary Ombudsman's findings of maladministration and may reject them provided the rejection is not irrational. In this case, the Secretary of State's rejection of the first finding of maladministration (in relation to the PEC 3 leaflet) was irrational and must be quashed. However, the Secretary of State's rejection of the Ombudsman's findings on causation of financial loss and the third finding of maladministration (regarding the 2002 MFR change) was not irrational and stands. The Ombudsman's findings are not binding absent judicial review, and the proper forum for enforcing Ombudsman findings is Parliament, not the courts.

Court Disposition

Secretary of State's appeal dismissed; Claimants' appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part.

Orders

  • Secretary of State's decision to reject the first finding of maladministration quashed.
  • Secretary of State's decision to reject the first recommendation quashed and remitted for reconsideration.