Bell-King v Network Rail: Procedural compliance and judicial review challenges for litigants in person
Key insights into procedural requirements and disability accommodations in judicial review proceedings
The Administrative Court's recent decision in The King (on the application of Denise Bell-King) v Network Rail Infrastructure [2025] EWHC 1756 (Admin) provides valuable guidance on procedural compliance expectations and the limits of reasonable adjustments for litigants in person with disabilities.
Case background and procedural history
The dispute originated from a personal injury claim following Bell-King's accident at London Waterloo Station on 4 January 2017. Having tripped on a raised edge, she suffered injuries that allegedly exacerbated her pre-existing fibromyalgia, ME, and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Network Rail accepted liability but contested causation, leading to protracted litigation marked by persistent procedural difficulties.
The case took a decisive turn when Bell-King's claim was struck out due to non-compliance with unless orders requiring submission of a detailed Schedule of Loss and medical authorisation forms by specified deadlines in April 2019. Despite multiple opportunities to rectify these deficiencies, the court found that Bell-King had fundamentally failed to engage with essential case management directives.
The judicial review challenge
Bell-King subsequently challenged Judge Lethem's strike-out decision of 22 July 2021, arguing procedural irregularities and claiming she had been denied a fair hearing due to her health conditions and lack of legal representation. Central to her challenge was the assertion that her disabilities prevented full compliance with court requirements and that she was entitled to reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.
The Administrative Court conducted a thorough examination of these claims, noting that whilst Bell-King had received accommodations during hearings—including breaks attributed to her health conditions—the primary responsibility for procedural compliance remained with her. The court distinguished between reasonable adjustments to facilitate participation and the fundamental requirement to comply with court orders.
Judicial findings on procedural compliance
The court's analysis revealed that substantial blame for Bell-King's difficulties lay with her inconsistent compliance with court orders rather than any systemic failure to accommodate her disabilities. The judgement emphasised that reasonable adjustments do not absolve litigants from their procedural obligations, particularly in sustained legal proceedings where multiple opportunities for compliance had been provided.
Judge Dias, in dismissing the initial judicial review application on 7 October 2022, found that Bell-King's claims were fundamentally misplaced. The court noted that subsequent procedural missteps, including late filings and inadequate document submissions, further undermined her position.
Costs implications and procedural lessons
The court's rejection of Bell-King's renewed application reaffirmed that her claims were both out of time and lacking substantial merit for judicial review. The decision highlighted the essential criteria for successful judicial review applications: timeliness, inherent merit, and proper party identification within claims.
The court upheld the existing costs order against Bell-King and permitted Network Rail to recover certain costs associated with litigious delays and adjournments. This aspect of the decision underscores the financial risks facing litigants in person who fail to maintain procedural compliance.
The case demonstrates the courts' expectation that all litigants, regardless of their circumstances, must engage meaningfully with procedural requirements. Whilst the legal system acknowledges the challenges faced by those with disabilities and self-represented parties, it maintains that reasonable adjustments must be balanced against the fundamental principles of case management and procedural fairness.
Bell-King v Network Rail Infrastructure serves as an important precedent regarding the boundaries of reasonable adjustments and the consequences of sustained non-compliance with court orders in complex litigation scenarios.