KB-2023-003302 - [2025] EWHC 1628 (KB)

There was, by the time of the hearing before me, no apparent dispute between the parties as to the general approach I should take. In summary, although this is a private law claim for breach of contract, I should apply the principles that the Administrative Court would apply in a judicial review claim to the exercise of a discretion by a public authority. I need to consider whether the decision to terminate the Claimant’s registration was tainted by reason of irrationality (either outcome irrationality or process irrationality) or an unfair process.

Both parties referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd and another [2015] UKSC 17. That was a contractual claim brought by the widow of Mr Braganza, an engineer who disappeared, presumed dead, at sea. The claim was brought against the late Mr Braganza’s employer. That employer refused a death in service benefit payment on the grounds that Mr Braganza had committed suicide. There was an obvious financial benefit to the Defendant in reaching that decision.

The Supreme Court held that there should be a term, implied into the contract of employment between Mr Braganza and his employer, that the discretion to refuse a benefit payment, on the grounds of suicide, was to be exercised rationally in the Wednesbury sense – not only did the decision have to be one that would be open to a reasonable decision-maker, they also had to exclude irrelevant considerations and have regard to obviously relevant ones. On the facts, the majority of the Supreme Court found that the employer’s decision failed to meet that standard. In particular, the employer had failed to take relevant matters into account – e.g. the evidence that there were no positive indications of suicide (such as a note), that Mr Braganza’s behaviour had appeared normal, that he had expressed concern about the weather (which might explain why he was on deck) and that he was a Roman Catholic and, for him, suicide was a mortal sin.