Re HM Coroner for West Sussex and Brighton and Hove [2026] EWHC 2890 (Admin). 20 October 2026 judgment here
Uncertainty in esoteric procedural aspects of law may not cause most of our Blog readers much lost sleep. However any White Book Nerds amongst you will be extremely pleased to learn that the Divisional Court have just firmly cleared up the procedural question of whether a Coroner can bring a part 8 claim under s.13 Coroners Act 1988 without naming any defendant.
In this case the Senior Coroner sought an order under s.13 quashing the conclusion of an earlier inquest and directing a fresh inquest. As the inquest had been heard decades ago by one of her long deceased predecessors the application was brought by the Senior Coroner without naming any defendant, although it was made with the full support of the bereaved family.
The Divisional Court (Singh LJ and Fordham J) were happy to determine the matter without requiring any attendance at the hearing. The Court readily granted the order sought, although in doing so raised, and then answered for themselves, the procedural question of whether the application might be permitted to proceed at all without any defendant being named.
Background
The factual basis for the s.13 application was straightforward. Andrea Bernard died in 1978 and the original inquest recorded a conclusion of accidental death. Decades later, her stepmother, Janice Nix, was convicted of her manslaughter. With the bereaved family’s full support the Senior Coroner obtained the Attorney General’s fiat and applied under s.13 for the original inquisition to be quashed.
Lord Justice Singh, whilst granting the order sought, considered it to be procedurally unusual that there was no defendant named in this part 8 claim. Although his Lordship said that he was aware of one other case where a s.13 application had been brought by a coroner without a named defendant[1] he mused over the procedural basis for such a step.
The Civil Procedure Rules, rule 8.2A makes provision for a Practice Direction to set out circumstances where it is unnecessary to name a defendant to a part 8 claim, however no such Practice Direction has ever been issued. Singh LJ however recognised that the notes to the White Book also state that that it is it is open to a Claimant to issue a Part 8 claim without joining a Defendant in some cases which are not dealt with by a specific Practice Direction, either under CPR rule 8.2A itself or under the general provision in CPR rule 3.1(2)(p) which permits the court to take any other step or make any other order for the purpose of managing the case and furthering the overriding objective.
Relying on this latter provision the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost clearly led to the position that this claim should be permitted to proceed defendant free. Applying the ‘Hillsbrough test’[2] it was clearly in the interests of justice to order a new inquest in this case, and so the order the Senior Coroner sought was granted.
Commentary
A Senior Coroner has a legitimate public function in initiating a s.13 application where compelling new evidence demonstrates that an earlier inquest no longer reflects the known facts. The absence of a defendant in such cases hasn’t actually been a point of procedure that seems to have bothered other judges. Your blogger is aware of several s.13 claims brought under part 8 CPR by a Senior Coroner to seek a fresh inquest without any identified defendant to the claim.[3] Generally these claims arise when some new evidence has come to light since the first inquest or where the Coroner has been misled or misinformed during their inquest and it is clear to the Coroner that justice requires a fresh inquest hearing.
In this writer’s experience setting out within the claim form why there is no defendant has been enough for other judges to apply their CPR 3.1 case management powers without further comment.[4] Nevertheless it is comforting to have this procedural point now clarified by Lord Justice Singh (who one might suspect would be proud to be called ‘a White Book Nerd’ himself)
Although in some cases the Senior Coroner has chosen to name the bereaved family as the defendant to the s.13 application ,[5] it is now quite clear that there is no need to cast a bereaved person who supports the application as the defendant
This case does though underline how the views of the bereaved are very important when a fresh inquest is sought and that up to date evidence of the family’s position should always be before the court. In its simplest form a letter or better still a witness statement confirming the position of the bereaved should be put before both the Attorney General (when first seeking a fiat) and the Divisional Court. Alternatively naming the likely IPs in the inquest as interested parties to the s.13 claim means that they can also be asked to sign the draft order and so indicate their agreement to the application.
[1] See In the matter of the Inquest into the death of Michael Richard Vaughan [2020] EWHC 3670 (Admin) [2020] Blogged here
[2] As set out in Attorney General v Her Majesty’s Coroner for South Yorkshire [2012] EWHC 3783 (Admin), [2012] Inquest LR 143 at [10] the single question in such cases is whether the interests of justice make a further inquest either necessary or desirable.
[3] As but some examples: In the matter of the Inquest into the death of Helen Bailey [2018] EWHC 3443 (Admin) here Re HM Senior Coroner for North West Wales [2017] EWHC 2557 (Admin) here; His Majesty’s Senior Coroner for West Yorkshire (Western District) [2025] EWHC 1672 (Admin) 3 July 2025. here; HM Senior Coroner for Cornwall And the Scilly Isles [2024] EWHC 2673 (Admin) here.
[4] HM Senior Coroner for Birmingham and Solihull [2026] EWHC 1628 (Admin) here
[5] HM Senior Coroner Sarah Ormond-Walshe v Sherren [2024] EWHC 2332. here; HM Senior Coroner v Alexei [2025] EWHC 2768 (Admin), here