Equitable Members Action Group, R (on the application of) v Her Majesty's Treasury

Equitable Members Action Group, R (on the application of) v Her Majesty's Treasury

The Government’s rejection of the Ombudsman’s findings of injustice in respect of findings 2, 4, and 5 was not supported by cogent reasons and thus unlawful. The Government’s responses to other findings and its rejection of the compensation scheme and the Chadwick Terms of Reference were not irrational or unlawful.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Equitable Members Action Group; Defendant: Her Majesty’s Treasury; Interested Party: The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration; Interested Party: The Right Honourable Sir John Chadwick; Intervener: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Partial grant of judicial review
Legal Topics
Ombudsman Findings, Maladministration, Judicial Review of Government Response, Compensation for Regulatory Failure, Financial Regulation
Administrative Law Public Law Ombudsman Findings Maladministration Judicial Review of Government Response Compensation for Regulatory Failure Financial Regulation

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Equitable Members Action Group

Claimant

Her Majesty’s Treasury

Defendant

The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration

Interested Party

The Right Honourable Sir John Chadwick

Interested Party

The Attorney General

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Government provided cogent reasons for rejecting the Ombudsman’s findings of maladministration and injustice
  2. 2 Whether the Government’s rejection of the Ombudsman’s recommendation for a compensation scheme was lawful
  3. 3 Whether the Chadwick Terms of Reference were lawful or unintelligible

Ratio Decidendi

The Government’s rejection of the Ombudsman’s findings of injustice in respect of findings 2, 4, and 5 was not supported by cogent reasons and thus unlawful. The Government’s responses to other findings and its rejection of the compensation scheme and the Chadwick Terms of Reference were not irrational or unlawful.

Court Disposition

Partial grant of judicial review

Orders

  • Grounds of challenge in respect of findings 2, 4, and 5 upheld to the extent indicated in the judgment.
  • Other grounds of challenge rejected.