Is a public inquiry a “court or tribunal”?

R. (on the application of Witness IIA126) v Chair of the Independent Inquiry Relating to Afghanistan [2025] EWHC 2842 (Admin) 

The High Court judgment handed down by Steyn J towards the end of 2025 is understood to be the first decision which has considered whether a public inquiry is a “court or tribunal”. This decision holds significance for those who should be named as interested parties in judicial review proceedings, and for clarifying the scope of relief that may be available to them.

Key points

• The ruling was made following a Case Management Conference in judicial review proceedings in which two linked decisions made by the Chair of the Independent Inquiry relating to Afghanistan (the 'Inquiry') were being challenged.

• The Royal Military Police ('RMP') applied to be joined to the judicial review proceedings as an interested party. In their application, they sought to rely on paragraph 4.6(2) of the Judicial Review Practice Direction ('PD54A') which states that “[w]here the claim for judicial review relates to proceedings in a court or tribunal, any other party to those proceedings will be an interested party in the judicial review proceedings”. They therefore argued that, because they were a party to the Inquiry proceedings, they should be joined to the judicial review proceedings as of right as they fell within the definition of an “interested party” in CPR 54.1(2)(f).

• In addressing this submission, Steyn J noted that there is no definition of the term “court or tribunal” in the Senior Courts Act 1981 ('SCA') so it was therefore a matter for the court to determine.  

• She held that the term “court or tribunal” in PD54A should be interpreted consistently with the same term where it appears in s.31 of the SCA. 

• Whilst Steyn J concluded that the Inquiry was obviously not a “court”, she considered whether the Inquiry could be a “tribunal”. Noting that, ordinarily, a tribunal would be understood to be a judicial body which determines relevant types of disputes between parties, she concluded that the Inquiry was not set up to determine any dispute and there were no ‘parties’ as such. 

• It followed that the Inquiry was therefore a public authority to which s.31(5A) of the SCA would be inapplicable and that it was not a “court or tribunal” for the purposes of PD54A. 

Key takeaway

• A public inquiry is not a court or tribunal for the purposes of PD54A. As such, not all Core Participants in a public inquiry are entitled to be interested parties as of right in any judicial review proceedings unless they are directly affected by the judicial review claim.

A copy of the judgment is available here.

If you would like to discuss any of the topics raised in this article, please contact Annabel Holloway, Gemma Ludgate, Charlotte Whitaker or any other member of our Public Inquiries team.

This summary was written by Annabel Holloway and Nicole Simpson.