Can an Inquest Lead to a Civil Claim?

Introduction

An inquest and a civil claim may examine many of the same events, documents and witnesses. They do not, however, perform the same legal function.

The purpose of an inquest is to determine who the deceased was and how, when and where they came by their death. Where the procedural obligation under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights is engaged, the investigation may extend more broadly to the circumstances in which the death occurred, which is set out in Section 5 of Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

A civil claim asks different questions. It may require a court to decide whether a person or organisation owed a legal duty of care, whether that duty was breached, whether the breach caused the death and what compensation, damages or other remedy should follow.

No inquest can, itself, award compensation or determine civil liability. Nevertheless, the evidence obtained and tested through the coronial process may be highly relevant to whether a civil claim can properly be brought and whether it will ultimately be succesful.

Readers unfamiliar with the coronial process may find What Happens at an Inquest? – A Step-by-Step Guide helpful before considering the relationship between an inquest and civil litigation.

An Inquest Does Not Determine Civil Liability

The statutory boundary is found in section 10(2) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The Coroner’s determination and findings must be framed so as to avoid determining criminal liability on the part of a named person or civil liability.

This reflects the inquisitorial nature of the coronial jurisdiction. As the Chief Coroner’s Bench Guidance explains, there are no conventional “parties” to an inquest. The responsibility for conducting the investigation rests with the Coroner, while those recognised as Interested Persons are given rights to participate in the process.

The distinction should not be overstated. A Coroner may still make clear and, where justified, critical findings of fact. The current Bench Guidance states:

“Findings of fact, however robustly stated, are not prohibited.”

A Coroner may therefore describe a failure as serious, identify inadequate precautions or record that a particular act or omission contributed to the death. What the Coroner should not do is determine that a person was negligent, that a duty of care was breached or that civil liability has been established.

This means that an inquest conclusion may contain findings which are important to a later claim without deciding the claim itself.

My separate article, What Conclusions Can a Coroner Reach?, explains the distinction between short-form and narrative conclusions in greater detail.

So How Can an Inquest Assist a Civil Claim?

In practical terms, an inquest may assist by establishing a reliable account of what occurred and by bringing together evidence which would otherwise be difficult for a family to obtain. That evidence may include:

Medical, prison, police, ambulance or care records;
Internal investigations and incident reports;
Statements from those directly involved;
CCTV, body-worn video, telephone recordings or electronic records;
Post-mortem and toxicology evidence;
Independent expert evidence; and
Oral evidence given and tested at the final hearing.

The Coroner has statutory powers to require the production of relevant documents and evidence. Rule 13 of the Coroners (Inquests) Rules 2013 also requires documents held by the Coroner to be disclosed to an Interested Person who requests them, subject to the applicable restrictions and exceptions.

This process may help a family and its legal representatives to:

Construct an accurate chronology;
Identify who made particular decisions;
Understand policies and systems in force at the time;
Examine whether warnings or risk indicators were overlooked;
Explore the medical cause of death and issues of causation;
Identify inconsistencies between written accounts and oral evidence; and
Assess the credibility and reliability of potential witnesses.

In a complex case, the evidence that emerges during an inquest may materially alter the assessment of a possible civil claim. It may reveal previously unknown failings, strengthen an existing allegation or demonstrate that a proposed claim cannot properly be pursued.

The inquest should not, however, be treated merely as a mechanism for obtaining evidence for litigation. Its purpose remains the investigation of the death. Nor does coronial disclosure necessarily replace the disclosure, witness evidence or expert evidence required under the Civil Procedure Rules.

Does a Critical Inquest Conclusion Establish the Claim?

No. A critical conclusion may be highly significant, but it does not establish negligence or any other form of civil liability.

A civil claimant must still prove the legal elements of the particular cause of action relied upon. In an ordinary negligence claim, that will usually include:

The existence of a duty of care;
A breach of that duty;
Factual and legal causation; and
Recoverable loss.

The precise legal tests applied in the civil proceedings may not be identical to the questions considered by the Coroner. The parties may also rely upon additional evidence which was not before the inquest.

Further, a civil claim is more likely to involve the use of Part 35 experts. Their evidence is very often critical to a civil claim.

Equally, an inquest which does not return a critical conclusion does not automatically prevent a civil claim. The Coroner may have applied a narrower scope, may not have considered a particular issue relevant to the statutory questions or may have concluded that a failing did not contribute to the death in the manner required for it to appear on the Record of Inquest.

So the proper question is not simply, “What conclusion did the Coroner reach?” It is whether the available evidence, considered under the applicable principles of civil law, supports a viable claim.

What Types of Civil Claim May Follow an Inquest?

The form of any claim will depend upon the circumstances of the death. Claims may arise following alleged clinical negligence, an accident at work, a road traffic collision, unsafe premises, failures in social care, a death in custody or detention, or an alleged failure by a public authority to protect life.

There are commonly two distinct categories of claim following a death.

A Claim on Behalf of the Estate

Section 1 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 provides, subject to limited exceptions, that causes of action vested in the deceased survive for the benefit of their estate.

Depending on the facts, an estate claim may include damages for:

Pain, suffering and loss of amenity experienced before death;
Financial losses incurred by the deceased before death;
Care or assistance provided before death; and
Funeral expenses paid by the estate.

The claim is ordinarily pursued by the deceased’s personal representative.

A Claim for the Benefit of Dependants

The Fatal Accidents Act 1976 creates a separate cause of action where death was caused by a wrongful act, neglect or default which would have entitled the deceased to claim damages had death not occurred. The action is brought for the benefit of qualifying dependants.

Depending upon the circumstances, damages may include:

Loss of financial dependency;
Loss of services provided by the deceased;
Funeral expenses incurred by dependants; and
Statutory bereavement damages, where the claimant falls within one of the categories prescribed by the Act.

An action under the Fatal Accidents Act is generally brought by the executor or administrator. If no such action has been brought within six months of the death, the legislation permits qualifying dependants to bring the action themselves, subject to the statutory requirements.

The estate claim and the dependants’ claim are legally distinct, although they will frequently be pursued together.

Claims Under the Human Rights Act 1998

Where the death involves the conduct of a public authority, there may also be a claim under the Human Rights Act 1998.

This is particularly relevant where it is alleged that the state failed to take reasonable steps to protect life, used lethal force unlawfully or failed to conduct an effective investigation into the death.

The existence of an Article 2 inquest does not itself establish that a substantive or procedural breach of Article 2 occurred. Indeed, the Chief Coroner’s Bench Guidance confirms that a Coroner is not permitted to determine that an Article 2 obligation was breached, because that would appear to determine civil liability.

Any Human Rights Act claim must therefore be considered separately and by reference to the acts or omissions alleged, the claimant’s status as a victim and the remedies available under the Act.

Should a Family Wait Until the Inquest Has Finished?

Not necessarily.

In many cases, it is sensible for the civil investigation and the coronial investigation to proceed alongside one another. A Solicitor may obtain records, instruct an expert, notify a potential Defendant or send a formal letter of claim while the inquest remains outstanding.

There may be good reasons to defer a final decision until important coronial evidence has been heard. That is different from taking no action at all.

The central concern is limitation.

For many claims involving personal injury or death, the general limitation period is three years. In relation to a cause of action surviving for the benefit of the estate, section 11(5) of the Limitation Act 1980 generally provides for a period of three years from the date of death or the personal representative’s date of knowledge, whichever is later.

For claims under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, section 12 generally provides for three years from the date of death or the relevant dependant’s date of knowledge, whichever is later.

Different and potentially shorter time limits may apply to other claims. Most notably, proceedings under section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998 must generally be brought within one year of the act complained of, although the court has a discretion to permit a longer period where it considers that equitable.

An inquest does not automatically stop these time limits from running.

Where the limitation period may expire before the inquest concludes, the parties may agree a limitation standstill or the claimant may need to issue protective proceedings and seek an appropriate stay. Families should not assume that they can safely wait for the Coroner’s conclusion before obtaining civil advice.

Can Evidence Given at the Inquest Be Used Later?

Evidence obtained through the inquest may inform the preparation and assessment of a civil claim. Documents disclosed by the Coroner, expert reports, witness statements and the evidence heard in court may all be relevant.

The Record of Inquest and any reasoned findings may also help identify the factual basis upon which the Coroner reached the conclusion.

However, evidence must still be approached in accordance with the rules governing civil proceedings. For example:

A witness will probably need to provide a separate civil witness statement;
Expert evidence may need to comply with CPR Part 35;
Documents may require formal disclosure within the civil claim;
Formal cross-examination may be required upon both witnesses of fact and experts;
Questions of hearsay and evidential weight may arise; and
Evidence disclosed for coronial purposes may be subject to restrictions on its further use.

The civil court must reach its own decision on the evidence properly before it. The inquest conclusion is not a substitute for pleading and proving the civil case.

Can the Costs of Attending the Inquest Be Recovered?

There is ordinarily no power for the Coroner to order one Interested Person to pay another Interested Person’s legal costs.

In some circumstances, however, the costs of work undertaken in connection with an inquest may later be recoverable as costs of and incidental to related civil proceedings.

In Roach v Home Office [2009] EWHC 312 (QB); [2010] QB 256, the High Court confirmed that inquest costs are not automatically excluded from recovery in a subsequent civil claim. Recoverability depends upon the facts and upon whether the work was sufficiently relevant to the civil proceedings and reasonably and proportionately incurred.

Part 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which governs fixed costs, does not apply to costs incurred in respect of or in connection with inquest proceedings. That provision does not make all inquest costs automatically recoverable. Entitlement and proportionality remain fact-sensitive questions.

Where representation at the inquest is also intended to support a contemplated civil claim, the legal team should keep careful records explaining the relevance of the work undertaken as it is likely to be challenged by Defendants at a later stage.

The Importance of a Coordinated Approach

The inquest and the civil claim should not be treated as entirely separate compartments.

Questions asked at a Pre-Inquest Review Hearing may affect the evidence ultimately available. Decisions about scope, disclosure, witnesses and expert evidence may have consequences for the family’s understanding of the death and for any later litigation.

Equally, civil practitioners should remain conscious that the inquest is not a trial of the proposed Defendant. Questions should assist the Coroner’s investigation and remain within the proper scope of the hearing.

Where possible, the legal strategy should therefore be coordinated from an early stage. This is particularly important where:

The medical or factual issues are complex;
Several public bodies or corporate organisations are involved;
Article 2 may be engaged;
Expert evidence is likely to be required;
Limitation is approaching; or
The family may have both an estate claim and dependency claims.

My article Do I Need a Barrister for an Inquest? explains the circumstances in which specialist representation may be particularly valuable.

Practical Takeaways

An inquest cannot determine civil liability or award compensation.
The evidence obtained and tested at an inquest may nevertheless be central to assessing a later claim.
A critical conclusion may support a claim, but does not prove it.
A non-critical conclusion does not necessarily prevent civil proceedings.
Claims may be brought on behalf of the estate, for qualifying dependants or, in appropriate cases, under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Limitation continues to run while the inquest is taking place.
Early and coordinated advice can protect the family’s position in both proceedings.
Some inquest costs may be recoverable in subsequent civil proceedings, but recovery is not automatic.

Final Thoughts

An inquest can lead to a civil claim in the practical sense that it may reveal the evidence, witnesses and factual findings upon which a claim is later based. It does not create liability and it does not decide whether compensation is payable.

The coronial and civil jurisdictions ask different questions and provide different remedies. The inquest investigates the death in the public interest. The civil claim determines private legal rights and, where liability is established, provides compensation or other relief.

The strongest approach is often one which respects that distinction while recognising the close relationship between the two processes. Families should be able to participate fully in the inquest without losing sight of limitation, evidential requirements or the separate legal tests which will govern any later claim.