Bates & Anor, R (on the application of) v Langstaff [2019] EWHC 3238 (Admin) (07 November 2019)

The Chairman correctly applied Rule 7 of the Inquiry Rules 2006, which mandates joint legal representation for core participants with similar interests, and there was no error of law or irrationality in refusing to designate MLaw as the Claimants' recognised legal representative.

Citation: [2019] EWHC 3238 (Admin)
Parties: Claimant: Frederick Bates; Claimant: Eleanor Bates; Defendant: Sir Brian Langstaff
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 07 November 2019
Procedural Posture: Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission for Judicial Review
Outcome: Application dismissed
Legal Topics: Inquiries Act 2005, Inquiry Rules 2006, Judicial Review, Core Participant Status, Legal Representation in Public Inquiries

Public Law Administrative Law Inquiries Act 2005 Inquiry Rules 2006 Judicial Review Core Participant Status Legal Representation in Public Inquiries

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Frederick Bates

Claimant

Eleanor Bates

Claimant

Sir Brian Langstaff

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

1 Whether the Chairman of the Infected Blood Inquiry misinterpreted or misapplied Rule 7 of the Inquiry Rules 2006 in refusing to designate MLaw as the Claimants' recognised legal representative
2 Whether the Chairman's decision was irrational in the public law sense

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

Permission for judicial review refused
Defendant awarded costs of preparing the acknowledgement of service but not for appearance