Westgaph v National Museums Liverpool: procedural compliance and public function boundaries in judicial review

The Administrative Court's decision in Laurence Westgaph v National Museums Liverpool provides instructive guidance on procedural requirements and the boundaries of public functions in judicial review proceedings. HHJ Stephen Davies's judgement, delivered on 12 September 2025, demonstrates the rigorous standards expected when challenging public bodies and the consequences of procedural non-compliance.

Case background and procedural history

Mr Westgaph initiated judicial review proceedings on 13 May 2025, challenging decisions made by National Museums Liverpool (NML) from 8 February 2025 onwards. The claim arose following a controversial newspaper article containing allegations about his past conduct, which led to actions affecting his engagement with the institution.

The case progressed through preliminary stages, with the High Court ordering an oral hearing on 1 August 2025 to determine permission and address proposed amendments to the claimant's statement of facts. The substantive hearing occurred on 27 August 2025, with Mr Westgaph appearing as a litigant in person whilst NML was represented by Gideon Barth of Weightmans LLP.

Service failures and time extension refusal

A critical procedural failing concerned Mr Westgaph's failure to serve the claim form within prescribed time limits. HHJ Davies refused to extend time for service, applying established principles that require compelling reasons for such extensions. The judge considered factors including the strength of the underlying claim and potential prejudice to the defendant.

The court's approach reflects the broader judicial emphasis on procedural compliance in administrative law. Even where substantive issues may warrant consideration, procedural failures can prove fatal to claims, particularly where defendants would suffer prejudice from delayed or defective service.

Clarity requirements and arguability threshold

Beyond procedural deficiencies, the judgement addressed the substantive merits of Mr Westgaph's claims. HHJ Davies found the claims lacked clarity and failed to meet the "reasonably arguable" threshold required for judicial review permission. The court noted that complex, poorly articulated grievances substantially prejudiced NML's ability to mount an effective defence.

This aspect of the decision underscores the importance of precise pleading in judicial review. Claims must be formulated with sufficient specificity to enable meaningful judicial scrutiny and allow respondents to understand the case against them. General grievances or disputes lacking clear legal foundations are unlikely to satisfy permission requirements.

Public function analysis and PSED considerations

The judgement examined whether NML's decisions constituted exercises of public function subject to judicial review. Despite Mr Westgaph's arguments regarding the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), the court determined that the relevant decisions fell outside the scope of public functions attracting judicial oversight.

This analysis reflects established jurisprudence distinguishing between public bodies' various functions. Not all activities of ostensibly public organisations constitute public functions for judicial review purposes. The court must examine the specific nature of the decision-making process and its relationship to statutory duties or public service provision.

Alternative dispute resolution emphasis

Notably, HHJ Davies encouraged both parties to consider alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, advocating for dialogue to address what he characterised as "relational ruptures" between the parties. This approach recognises that not all disputes involving public bodies require judicial determination, particularly where underlying issues concern relationships rather than clear legal violations.

The judgement in Westgaph v National Museums Liverpool reinforces fundamental principles governing judicial review procedure whilst illustrating the courts' careful approach to defining public function boundaries. The decision emphasises that effective judicial review requires both procedural compliance and substantive legal arguability, with clear articulation of grievances essential for meaningful judicial consideration.