R (O’Brien) v HM Assistant Coroner for Sefton, Knowsley and St Helens [2026] EWCA Civ 605 (19 May 2026) Costs judgment here.
As readers of this blog should already know ‘neutral means neutral’ if you are a Coroner responding to a Judicial Review claim (and if you didn’t know that, see our 2018 blog following the High Court decision in Worthington: here). Of course in that case the Coroner had ‘succeeded’ in defending the claim, so any judicial comment regarding the payment of costs (even though made by a three judge Divisional Court which included the Chief Coroner) was pure obiter. Nevertheless the entire Bench had been quite keen to stress that it is really not a very good look for a Coroner to say one thing yet do another.
The Divisional Court in Worthington had sent out a strong message to Coroners that there should be no sleight of hand, saying that: “We do not condone any practice of Coroners … insofar as it exists, of stating that they are taking a neutral stance … but then making submissions that are clearly not neutral but partisan”. What was made clear in Worthington was that when determining liability for costs what is relevant is the stance the Coroner has actually taken and not the stance the Coroner says they have taken.
If any Coroner might have since thought the High Court didn’t really mean it, then Lord Justice Edis in the Court of Appeal has just taken up a VERY LARGE PINK highlighter to put the matter beyond doubt.