Bradley & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions & Ors

Facts

Members of final salary occupational pension schemes that had been wound up underfunded complained to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Her report found maladministration, including that official leaflets and information about the security of such pensions had been inaccurate and misleading, and recommended that the government consider compensation. The Secretary of State rejected the findings of maladministration. Scheme members sought judicial review of that rejection.

History

Bean J held that the rejection of the Ombudsman's first finding of maladministration, concerning the official information, was irrational; the Secretary of State appealed.

Issue

Whether a minister is bound by findings of maladministration made by the Parliamentary Commissioner under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967; if not, on what basis a decision to reject such findings may be challenged; and whether the rejection in this case was lawful.

Held

The Secretary of State was not bound by the findings, but was not free to reject them merely because he took a different view; his decision to reject the finding concerning the official information was not supported by cogent reasons and was unlawful. The Secretary of State's appeal on that finding failed.

Ratio

• Findings of maladministration by the Parliamentary Commissioner are not legally binding on the minister, but a minister who rejects them must act rationally, which requires cogent reasons for the rejection; it is not enough that he prefers his own view, and a rejection lacking such reasons may be quashed on judicial review.

Key reasoning

• The 1967 Act confers no power on the Commissioner to make binding determinations; her role is to investigate and report to Parliament, and the scheme leaves the response to government and Parliament.
• R v Local Commissioner for Administration, ex p Eastleigh BC [1988] QB 855 concerned local government ombudsmen and a different statutory scheme, and did not establish that Parliamentary Commissioner findings bind ministers.
• Because the Commissioner is an independent investigator who has examined the evidence, a minister who rejects her findings must engage with them and give reasons that are cogent in the light of her investigation; a bare disagreement is irrational.
• Applying that test, the government had not given cogent reasons for rejecting the finding that its official information about pension security was misleading.

Where it fits in the module

Under Judicial review and the ombudsmen, Bradley is the key case on how courts treat ombudsman findings that government declines to accept. It should be contrasted with Eastleigh on local government ombudsmen and with later authority on the reviewability of the ombudsmen themselves. The case shows the courts reinforcing an essentially political accountability mechanism through rationality review, raising questions about the boundary between parliamentary and judicial control of the executive.

Criticisms

• The cogent reasons standard sits between binding effect and ordinary rationality review without a clear statutory foundation, and its content is uncertain.
• Judicial enforcement of Ombudsman findings may cut across the design of the 1967 Act, under which the remedy for an unaccepted report is political pressure through Parliament.
• Conversely, without legal force the Ombudsman's findings could be disregarded at will, so the decision arguably protects the integrity of the scheme.
• The ruling leaves the minister free to refuse the recommended remedy, so complainants may win the legal argument without obtaining redress.