Analysis and conclusion
Analysis and conclusion
Should the claim be treated as effectively in time?
I should deal first with the suggestion made on Mrs Rizvi’s behalf that the submission of the 17 June 2024 claim form to the ACO should be treated as the bringing of a claim in time, or something close to it, by analogy with CPR 7.2 and Practice Direction 7A para. 6.1 and 6.2:
Rule 7.2 provides that proceedings are started when the court issues a claim form at the request of the claimant.
Practice Direction 7A para. 6.1 provides that “where the claim form as issued was received in the court office on a date earlier than the date on which it was issued by the court, the claim is ‘brought’ for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980 and any other relevant statue on that earlier date.”
I am not persuaded that these provisions assist Mrs Rizvi:
First, the claim for judicial review for which permission is sought is not in the terms of the claim form submitted to the Administrative Office on 17 June 2024, but materially different.
Second, the provisions in question are not directly applicable to claims for judicial review, and are not concerned with a case, such as the present, in which the court requires further information from the claimant before it can issue the claim form.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The legal context to the Inquest
- Article 2 inquests
- The roles of the Coroner and the Jury
- Challenges to a coroner’s Galbraith decision
- The course of the Inquest
- The Ruling
- The application for an extension of time
- The applicable legal principles
- Analysis and conclusion
- Is there a reasonable excuse for the delay?
- The importance of the issues
- The prospects of success
- Would an extension of time cause substantial hardship or prejudice to the defendant or any other party or be detrimental to good administration?
- Mrs Rizvi’s Grounds
- Did the Coroner ask herself the right question?
- Did the Coroner inappropriately gloss the test for an Article 2 operational breach?
- The criticism of the Coroner’s findings as to the “off the record” conversation and the offer of a lift
- Ground 2
- The authorities on the treatment of causation in coroner’s inquests
- What acts or events were “in play” at the Inquest?
- Ground 2: conclusion
- Conclusions
![AC-2024-LON-003241 - [2025] EWHC 3014 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png)