The Local Government Association has published Guidance for Councils on Public Spaces Protection Orders under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
Lifting Automatic Suspension
June 19th, 2017 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and ContractsIn Alstom Transport UK Limited v London Underground Limited and Transport for London (2017) EWHC 1406 (TCC) the principal issue was whether the Court should hear an application for specific disclosure before the application to lift the suspension. Coulson J concluded that it was appropriate for the application for specific disclosure to be heard in advance of the application to lift the suspension. Read more »
Service of notice
June 19th, 2017 by James Goudie KC in Council Tax and RatesIn UKI (Kingsway) Limited v Westminster City Council (2017) EWCA Civ 430 the appeal concerned the formal validity and service of a completion notice under Schedule 4A to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (“the 1998 Act”) delivered by the respondent, Westminster City Council (“the respondent” or “the billing authority”), on 5 March 2012 in respect of premises on the 3rd-6th floors of a building at 1 Kingsway, London WC2 (“the premises”). The completion notice purported to bring the premises into the 2010 rating list with effect from 1 June 2012. Read more »
Discrimination
June 15th, 2017 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and LitigationIs authoritative material showing that discriminatory conduct or attitudes were widespread elsewhere in an institution admissible in considering the motivation of an alleged individual discriminator? It may be, rules the Court of Appeal in Chief Constable of Greater Manchester v Bailey (2017) EWCA Civ 425, at paragraph 99. Such material may make it more likely that the alleged conduct had occurred or that the alleged motivations were operative. Alternatively, there might be some more specific relevance. However, such material has always to be used with care. Moreover, the fact finding tribunal has in any case to identify with specificity the particular reason why it considers the material in question to have probative value as regards the motivation of the alleged discriminator in any particular case. There is no doctrine of “transferred malice”.
ECHR Article 8
June 9th, 2017 by James Goudie KC in Human Rights and Public Sector Equality DutySuspension and/or consequential publicity may damage reputation. When it does so Article 8 may be engaged. Proportionality will then apply to the suspension. See paragraphs 95-98 inclusive of Divisional Court Judgment in R (Crompton) v Police and Crime Commissioner for South Yorkshire (2017) EWHC 1349 (Admin).
Allocation
June 1st, 2017 by James Goudie KC in HousingIn R (C) v Islington LBC (2017) EWHC 1288 (Admin) Jeremy Baker J has held that the Council’s local lettings policy is lawful. It is not unlawfully discriminatory contrary to the ECHR (paragraphs 64-94) : it is proportionate and justified. For the same reason it is not contrary to Section 29 of the Equality Act 2010 (paragraphs 95-98). The Council had complied with the PSED when it introduced the policy (paragraphs 99-105). Introducing and maintaining the policy was not in breach of Section 11 of the Children Act 2004 (paragraphs 106-115).
Cost saving
May 24th, 2017 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and ContractsThe Supreme Court has reaffirmed that whereas saving cost is “of course” a legitimate objective of public policy, budgetary considerations “cannot” justify discrimination. In other words, if a benefit is to be limited in order to save costs, it “must” be limited in a way that is neither directly nor indirectly discriminatory and is a proportionate means of fulfilling the legitimate objective: R (Coll) v SoS for Justice (2017) UKSC 40, at paragraphs 40 and 42, per Lady Hale, Deputy President. Read more »
Improvement notices
May 22nd, 2017 by James Goudie KC in HousingWood v Kingston Upon Hull City Council (2017) EWCA Civ 364 concerns an Improvement Notice served by a local housing authority under the Housing Act 2004 (“the 2004 Act”). The appeal to the Court of Appeal, by the authority, arose in the following way.
Mr Wood is the freehold owner of a first floor flat (Flat 4) at 141 Princes Avenue in Hull. Ms Peacock is the freehold owner of the ground floor flat immediately below. The vertical boundary between the two flats is at the mid-point of the joists between the ceiling of the ground floor flat and the floor of Flat 4. Hull City Council took the view that there was inadequate fire resistance between the two flats, and served notice under Section 12 of the 2004 Act on both Mr Wood and Ms Peacock requiring remedial works to be carried out. The notice stated that the ground floor flat had a section of original lath and plaster ceiling which was in very poor condition with some sections missing. That lack of material separation increased the likelihood of unchecked spread of fire into Flat 4 from the ground floor flat in the event of a fire occurring within the ground floor flat. The notice specified two alternative schemes: Read more »