Rushbrooke v HM Coroner for West London [2020] EWHC 1612 (Admin)

With such a huge backlog of inquest cases waiting to be heard and the difficulties of convening inside a courtroom during the current pandemic, the appeal of holding a swifter, documentary only inquest is plain to see. However, the recent case of Rushbrooke is a timely reminder to coroners that they will run the risk of their findings being quashed if the haste to hold a paper-based inquest results in an insufficient investigation.

Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service v Veevers [2020] EWHC 2550 (Comm)

Can a family’s inquest costs be recovered in a subsequent civil claim if an admission has been made prior to the inquest? If the admission has in fact been informal or equivocal, the answer may well be yes.

The background

This claim arose from the tragic death of Mrs Veevers’ son, a firefighter, who died in a fire of 2013 from hypoxia and heat exhaustion. Around two months before an inquest was due to begin in 2016, and after the family representatives had already undertaken ‘extensive investigations’, the solicitors for the fire service wrote to their counterparts for Mrs Veevers, setting out:

‘Our clients have made no assessment of the potential for liability to the estate and dependants of (the deceased) but they have instructed us to set out their position in relation to any potential claim which may be brought for the family…Our clients are not in a position to consider an admission of liability and we have not undertaken a detailed forensic analysis of the potential for liability in any civil claim on their behalf. The purpose and objective in making the comments which we make directly below is to attempt to remove any additional stress from the family during and immediately after the inquest…We write in open correspondence in order to advise that our clients are willing to compensate the estate and dependents of Stephen Hunt pursuant to the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 and Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934, for any loss which they may prove to be attributable to the incident on 13 July 2013 together with payment of their reasonable costs.’

The six-week inquest was heard with a jury who returned a conclusion of unlawful killing, the jury finding the fire was probably started deliberately.[1] Civil proceedings were subsequently issued and it was admitted that the fire service were liable for failing to ensure the deceased did not exceed the maximum time using breathing apparatus and PPE. The fire service also agreed to pay Mrs Veevers’ reasonable costs. Her total costs bill was £334,000. She sought recovery of the costs incurred by her legal representatives preparing for and attending the inquest, which amounted to £141,000, over 40% of all of her costs.

Chief Coroner’s Guidance No. 37 – “COVID-19 Deaths and Possible Exposure in the Workplace” amended 1.7.2020

It is not often that guidance from the Chief Coroner excites the twittersphere. But the original version of this Guidance #37, issued on 28 April (see our earlier blog here), managed to generate much comment from the public, Doctor’s Associations and even MPs regarding the approach to considering shortcomings in the provision of PPE. The Chief Coroner puts out guidance, he does not make statements of policy. Some seem to have even misunderstood his guidance to be advocating that healthcare workers’ deaths should not be referred to a coroner[1]. Nevertheless, many commentators will feel vindicated in that the Chief Coroner has now updated his earlier Guidance which now focuses more on the individual judicial discretion of each coroner.