Balchin & Anor, R (on the application of) v Parliamentary Commissioner For Administration

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff and spouse sought judicial review to quash an adverse decision by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (the Parliamentary Ombudsman) regarding their complaint of maladministration against the Secretary of State for Transport. Their complaint concerned the confirmation of Road Orders without securing assurances from Norfolk County Council that adequate compensation would be provided for the impact of the road scheme on their home. The Commissioner had investigated and reported on the matter, concluding no maladministration by the Department of Transport. The Plaintiff challenged this conclusion, arguing that the Commissioner failed to address a key issue, posed the wrong question, and reached an unsustainable conclusion given the facts found. The court’s review focused primarily on the content of the Commissioner's report, which summarized the history of the case and the relevant legal and factual considerations.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration's decision failed to engage with a crucial issue capable of founding a finding of maladministration.
2. Whether the Commissioner posed an incorrect question in assessing maladministration.
3. Whether the Commissioner’s conclusion was unsustainable in light of the facts established during the investigation.
4. Whether the Commissioner omitted to consider the role and impact of Norfolk County Council’s stance on compensation and its amenability to correction by the Department of Transport.
5. Whether the failure of the Department of Transport to advise Norfolk County Council of its new statutory powers amounted to maladministration causing injustice to the Plaintiff.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Commissioner’s report failed to engage with the key issue of whether the Department of Transport should have drawn Norfolk County Council’s attention to its new discretionary power to compensate affected property owners.
• The Commissioner posed the wrong question by focusing on whether maladministration was due to a failure to meet legal obligations, rather than considering broader relevant factors.
• The Commissioner’s conclusion was unsustainable given the facts he himself found, including Norfolk County Council’s negative stance and failure to consider its powers properly.
• The Department of Transport’s omission to advise the council of its powers was a significant oversight potentially amounting to maladministration and causing injustice.
• It was inappropriate for the Commissioner to accept Norfolk County Council’s negative attitude as definitive without considering whether the Department’s intervention could have led to a different outcome.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Respondent’s legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court’s analysis centered on whether the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration had properly considered all relevant factors in concluding no maladministration had occurred. The Commissioner accepted the Department of Transport’s view that making confirmation of Road Orders conditional on Norfolk County Council’s discretionary purchase decisions would have been improper. However, the court focused on the Commissioner’s failure to consider whether the Department’s omission to inform the council of its newly conferred statutory powers under section 246(2A) of the Highways Act 1980 amounted to maladministration.

The Commissioner found that Norfolk County Council had a negative attitude towards exercising its powers and inferred that even if the Department had drawn attention to these powers, the council would have refused. The court expressed skepticism about this inference, noting that the council’s refusal appeared to be a fettered discretion and that the Department’s failure to prompt proper consideration was a potentially decisive omission.

The Commissioner’s jurisdiction excludes direct review of local government decisions, but the court held that the Commissioner should have considered Norfolk County Council’s stance insofar as it impacted whether the Department of Transport’s conduct constituted maladministration causing injustice to the Plaintiff. The Commissioner’s omission to evaluate this element amounted to a reviewable error because it was a relevant consideration legally required to be taken into account.

The court emphasized that the question of maladministration and resulting injustice remained for the Commissioner to decide upon reconsideration, but the failure to consider Norfolk’s attitude and the Department’s role in relation to it was a fundamental flaw in the original decision.

Holding and Implications

The court allowed the application for judicial review and held that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration’s decision was flawed due to omission of a relevant consideration. The Commissioner was ordered to reconsider the complaint in light of the judgment, specifically addressing whether the Department of Transport’s failure to inform Norfolk County Council of its compensation powers amounted to maladministration causing injustice to the Plaintiff.

If the Commissioner considered himself empowered to undertake reconsideration within 14 days, no further order of certiorari would be made. Otherwise, certiorari would be granted to quash the original decision, and the complaint would remain to be entertained. The Plaintiff was awarded costs, including legal aid taxation if applicable. The Commissioner was granted leave to appeal.

No new legal precedent was established; the decision primarily clarified the proper scope of the Commissioner’s investigatory role and the necessity of considering all legally relevant factors in maladministration complaints.