0
Alex Goodman KC and Natasha Jackson of Landmark Chambers have successfully obtained an order substituting Mr Kerman in a claim for judicial review originally brought by Camila Batmanghelidjh against the Charity Commission. They were instructed by Leverets Group. Tom Hickman KC and Faisel Sadiq appeared for the Charity Commission with Swift J giving judgment. The judgment sets out some important principles on substitution of parties and standing in judicial review.
A copy of the judgment may be accessed here.
The Charity “Keeping Kids Company” went into liquidation in 2015 after wholly unfounded allegations were made against it and no criminal action was pursued, but the false allegations affected its ability to secure funding. There was then a lengthy High Court trial before Falk J after the Official Receiver issued disqualification proceedings against the trustees of the charity (including the former Chairman of the trustees, Alan Yentob). In a 218-page judgment Mrs Justice Falk dismissed the Official Receiver’s claim on 12 February 2021. However, shortly thereafter, the Charity Commission now issued a brief report making findings of its own against the management of the Charity. Camila Batmanghelidjh, the late and former Chair of the charity issued proceedings for judicial review alleging that report to be irrational and apparently biased. Mr Justice Bourne granted permission for the claim to proceed in 2022, but sadly Ms Batmanghelidjh became ill shortly thereafter and passed away last year. Mr Kerman, the former Clinical Director of Kids Company applied to be substituted as a claimant so as to continue to pursue the vindication of the charity.
The judgment of Mr Justice Swift sets out the principles to be applied in these rare cases of substituting claimants. He held that previous case law which had set a framework for the substitution of parties in judicial review proceedings pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court had now been superseded by amendments to CPR 19.2(4)(b) which now provided an express basis for substitution where “it is desirable to substitute the new party so that the court can resolve the matters in dispute in the proceedings”. However, Swift J held that the prior case law would continue to provide important guidance when questions of substitution arise in judicial review claims.
Swift J held that the main (but not exclusive) factors as to whether he should substitute a claimant were (a) whether the substitute had a “sufficient interest; and (b) whether there is a sufficient identity of interest between the original claimant and the substitute. The latter recognised the importance of finality in public law decisions which is reflected in short time limits in judicial review.
Considering whether the substitute claimant had a “sufficient interest”, Swift J revisited his own decision as part of the Divisional Court (with Singh L.J.) that decided the R(Good Law Project) v Prime Minister [2022] EWHC 298 (Admin) and clarified that
“when deciding whether the claimant before the court has a sufficient interest, the existence of a “better placed claimant” is only one consideration. The weight attaching to it must depend on context.”
This is the second judgment since the Divisional Court’s decision to re-affirm the traditional tests for standing after the phraseology in the Good Law Project has seen some enthusiastic arguments for Defendants taking standing points (the other case being R (Rights: Community: Action Ltd) v SSLUHC [2024] EWHC 1693 (Admin)).
Mr Justice Swift awarded costs against the Charity Commission. A substantive hearing of the claim will be listed in the spring.
Press coverage can be found on here and here.
Alex Goodman KC had appeared in the previous two leading cases on the substitution of Claimants- as junior counsel to Richard Drabble QC in his first case in the Administrative Court R(River Thames Society) v First Secretary of State [2006] EWHC 2892 (Admin); and in a further judgment of Underhill J in R(SDR) v Bristol City Council [2012] EWHC 859 and also in R (Rights: Community: Action Ltd) v SSLUHC [2024] EWHC 1693 (Admin) (concerning standing). Natasha Jackson acted for Camila Batmanghelidjh in the lengthy trial before Falk J.
