In R (London Jewish Girls’ High Ltd) v Barnet LBC, Lawtel AC9301237, Mitting J, on 20 February 2013, dismissed the claim, which concerned the disposal of land by a local authority for “best consideration” under s.123 of the Local Government Act 1972. The Court was entitled to have regard to the consideration offered as at the date of the hearing of the claim for judicial review, and not simply the competing offers as they stood before the decision maker. On this basis, the proposed sale did not breach s.123 in circumstances where the developer’s proposal was clearly the better bid, having regard to the cash offered together with overage payments. Mitting J went on give guidance (obiter) as to what matters could be treated as consideration for the purposes of s.123. He held that the value of affordable housing units as part of a development scheme and contributions under a section 106 agreement could not amount to consideration within the meaning of s.123, however he held, tentatively, that nomination rights over affordable housing were capable of amounting to consideration on the basis that these were benefits accruing to the Council from the use of the land that are of commercial and monetary value to the Council.
Disabled Election Candidates
February 1st, 2013 by James Goudie KC in Elections and BylawsSchedule 4 to the Representation of the People Act 1983, as amended, provides for the definition of the term “election expenses”. It sets out matters that are to be considered “election expenses”. It sets out a list of matters excluded from being “election expenses”. The classification of an expense as an “election expense” has a number of regulatory consequences. These include that, under Section 76 of the Act, candidates are subject to a limit on the amount that can be spent on “election expenses”.
Pursuant to a power in the Act, there is being made the Representation of the People (Election Expenses Exclusion) Order 2013. This will amend the Act to exclude grant awards made by the Access to Elected Office Fund (“the Fund”) from the definition of “election expenses”. The Fund has been established by the Government Equalities Office to award financial support to disabled persons who will (or wish to) stand for elected office. In order to give full effect to the Fund policy, the Order amends existing provisions on “electoral expenses” which would otherwise cause difficulties for the proper operation of the Fund. This is because disabled and non-disabled candidates would otherwise not be treated equally as regards the incurring of expenses, in that disabled candidates who received monies from the Fund to remove or mitigate disability barriers would, amongst other things, have to count such expenditure against their election expenses limit. This would have the effect of reducing the amount they could spend on other electoral expenses. Whereas in contrast the non-disabled candidates would incur no such disability related expenses and so would benefit from the advantage of having the entirety of their election expenses limit to spend on other election expenses.
The Order exempts certain expenditure by or on behalf of disabled candidates from being considered “election expenses”. However in order to benefit from the exemption from being an “election expense” the expenditure must be designed to remove or reduce the barriers to seeking elected office faced by disabled candidates; an expense that arises as a consequence of the candidate’s particular disability; defrayed or reimbursed by a grant awarded from the Fund (however, if the expense is greater than amount of the grant provided by the Fund then the exemption only applies in relation to the amount of the expense that is covered by the Fund); in accordance with the terms and conditions of the grant made from the Fund.
The Order therefore provides that only matters of expenditure that a disabled candidate would face, but a non-disabled candidate would not face, are to be exempted from the definition of “election” expenses. Matters of expenditure that would be common to both disabled and non-disabled candidates, such as the normal printing of campaign leaflets for distribution to the public, would not fall within the scope of this exemption or within the scope of the Fund. However where a disabled candidate requires specially adapted transportation in order to participate in door-to-door campaigning on a level basis with a non-disabled candidate, then such an additional expense is likely to fall within the scope of the Fund and providing it satisfies the conditions set out above is likely to fall within the scope of this exemption.
The Order applies to all of the UK. However the Fund only applies to UK Parliamentary elections, local elections in England (except parish council elections), Greater London Authority elections, Mayoral elections in England and Police and Crime Commissioner elections in England and Wales.
The Fund, will distribute £2.3 million in grants from July 2012 to June 2014. The Fund is designed to meet the additional costs that a disabled person may face, such as extra transport costs or sign language interpreters, when seeking to stand for selection by a political party or election.
The Order refers to removing or mitigating “barriers” to elected office associated with a candidate’s disability. The Electoral Commission has taken issue with this. They believe that “barriers” is uncertain and will be difficult to interpret. They are concerned that there is scope for the Fund administrator to make grant allocations for a far wider range of matters than was intended. However, the Government’s view is that “barriers” means things that merely impede progress or success, as well as things that prohibit progress or success altogether. The term “barriers” is therefore the most appropriate for the Order. The fundamental difference appears to be that the Commission would prefer the exemption to be defined by an exhaustive list for reasons of certainty. However, the Fund has been set up on the basis that it must be able to fund any potential expense that arises from the mitigation of a barrier to elected office that occurs because of the candidate’s disability. Consequently it is impossible to define the exemption in the terms of an exhaustive list. A non-exhaustive list of expenses it will pay for would equally be unsatisfactory, because it will necessarily not mention everything covered. Therefore in order to provide certainty the Government have sought to define the exemption through descriptive principles that, as required, exactly match the scope of the Fund.
Further, the Order as drafted has the effect of imposing the test that expenses are only exempted provided they are aimed at removing or reducing the impediments disabled candidates face when seeking elected office. There is a further requirement that the impediments must directly result from a candidate’s disability.
Even if the “barriers” test is met, the Order also requires that for any spending to be exempt, it must be in line with the Fund’s terms and conditions. The Commission is not convinced that the terms and conditions are fit for purpose as currently drafted, believing they cannot be relied on to accurately define what is and is not exempt from spending limits. However, the Government does not agree that it is the terms and conditions that define the exemption, as this is done by the text of the Order. The reference to terms and conditions in the exemption is so as to ensure an individual who fraudulently obtains funding does not benefit from the exemption. In practice the terms and conditions are likely to help provide practical guidance, but it remains the case that the definition of the exemption is the wording set out in the Order.
Byelaws
December 14th, 2012 by James Goudie KC in Elections and BylawsThe Local Government Byelaws (Wales) Act 2012 (anaw 2) reforms procedures for making byelaws in Wales, including removing a requirement for confirmation of byelaws by the Welsh Ministers; enables certain byelaws to be enforced by fixed penalty notices; requires authorities that make byelaws to have regard to any guidance given by the Welsh Ministers on procedure; and restates for Wales a general power to make byelaws.
Judicial Review For Judicial Review For Error Of Fact
November 26th, 2012 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and LitigationRichmond-upon-Thames LBC v Kubicek [2012] EWCA 3292 (QB) is not a judicial review case, but it is of significance in relation to a judicial review or similar challenge based on a material error of fact giving rise to unfairness. The Richmond case was itself a statutory appeal. It raised an issue as to when, if ever, it is permissible for a County Court, hearing an appeal under s204 of the Housing Act 1985, on “any point of law” arising from a review decision made by a local housing authority in a homelessness case, to receive evidence on, and decide a question of fact relevant to, the review decision. It is well established that an appeal “on any point of law” is in substance the same as a judicial review. One of the issues on the appeal was whether new evidence which Mrs Kubicek sought to adduce was relevant to any issue on the s204 appeal.
It was common ground that under the statutory scheme of Part VII of the 1985 Act questions of fact are generally for the local housing authority making the review decision to determine. For that reason, the usual process on any appeal pursuant to s204 is for the matter to be determined on the basis of submissions as to the rationality and propriety of the review decision in the light of the material before the reviewing officer at the time of the decision. Evidence which was not before the reviewing officer is not usually relevant. The authorities, however, indicate that there are two purposes for which fresh evidence may be relevant on a s204 appeal. One such purpose is to show how the review decision was reached, including what material was before the reviewing officer and what procedure was followed. These matters may be relevant where, for example, it is alleged that there has been a failure to comply with the requirements of natural justice. An allegation that the decision-making process was tainted by misconduct on the part of someone involved in it would fall into this category. Where such an allegation is made, it is for the court to find the relevant facts, and evidence will be relevant and admissible to prove the misconduct or other alleged procedural impropriety.
A second purpose for which it is now clear that evidence may be relevant is to demonstrate that the decision subject to appeal was based on a material error of fact giving rise to unfairness. In the leading case of E and R v Home Secretary [2004] QB 1044, the Court of Appeal reviewed the authorities bearing on the question of whether, and if so when, a decision reached on an incorrect basis of fact can be challenged on an appeal limited to points of law. Carnwath LJ, as he then was (who gave the judgment of the Court) concluded at [66]:
“In our view, the time has now come to accept that a mistake of fact giving rise to unfairness is a separate head of challenge in an appeal on a point of law, at least in those statutory contexts where the parties share an interest in co-operating to achieve the correct result. Asylum law is undoubtedly such an area. Without seeking to lay down a precise code, the ordinary requirements for a finding of unfairness are … First, there must have been a mistake as to an existing fact, including a mistake as to the availability of evidence on a particular matter. Secondly, the fact or evidence must have been “established”, in the sense that it was uncontentious and objectively verifiable. Thirdly, the appellant (or his advisers) must not been have been responsible for the mistake. Fourthly, the mistake must have played a material (not necessarily decisive) part in the tribunal’s reasoning.”
In the Richmond case Leggatt J made four observations about this important statement of principle. The first is that in the way that this ground of review has been analysed by the Court of Appeal the purpose for which evidence is potentially relevant can be seen as an extension of the first purpose – that is, to show how the review decision was reached. In connection with this ground, evidence may be relevant to show not only what material was before the reviewing officer but also that evidence was available which was not placed before the reviewing officer and how that came about.
Second, although the Court of Appeal explained this ground of review as based on a principle of fairness, it is clear that the question whether there has been unfairness is not to be determined independently of the four requirements identified by the Court of Appeal; rather, the unfairness arises from the combination of factors which exist when those requirements are all met: see the analysis at [63].
Third, although the Court of Appeal suggested that the principle may be limited to “those statutory contexts where the parties share an interest in co-operating to achieve the correct result”, it is difficult to think of any context in which it would not be said that a public authority exercising a statutory function has an interest in ensuring that its decision is made on an accurate factual basis. Certainly decisions about housing assistance must fall within the scope of the principle as much as the decisions about asylum and planning control to which Carnwath LJ referred at [64].
Fourth, the second of the four requirements stated by Carnwath LJ is clearly of critical importance, but may possibly need some fine tuning. If, in order to decide that there has been a material mistake of fact, the court was entitled or required to resolve a factual dispute itself, then the court would be substituting its own finding of fact for that of the public body to which Parliament has given that task. Accordingly, to require that the fact has been “established” in the sense of being not merely objectively verifiable but uncontentious seems to be essential if a workable distinction between errors of law and errors of fact is to be maintained. It is less obviously essential that, where the fact about which a mistake is said to have been made is the availability of evidence on a particular matter, the evidence and not just the fact of its availability must be uncontentious. A court would not necessarily be usurping the function of the fact-finding body if it were to require the body to reconsider a decision made without knowledge of credible, even if not uncontentious, evidence which, if the decision-maker had been aware of it, might have led to a different result. A requirement that the evidence must have been uncontentious might also be thought to defeat the point of the Court of Appeal’s indication that the availability of evidence on a particular matter may itself be a relevant fact; for if evidence of a particular fact is uncontentious then so presumably is the fact itself.
Council Tax
November 23rd, 2012 by James Goudie KC in Council Tax and RatesTwo new Statutory Instruments, the Council Tax Reduction Schemes (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2012, SI 2012/2885, and the Council Tax Reduction Schemes (Default Scheme) (England) Regulations 2012, SI 2012/2886, make provision for the new, localised, council tax support schemes in England, which come into effect on 1 April 2013. They replace council tax benefit. All billing authorities in England are required to have their own scheme. The Default Scheme Regulations make provision for a default scheme that will apply to those billing authorities that have not made their own scheme by 31 January 2013. Otherwise all schemes made by authorities, approved by Full Council, must include those matters that are prescribed in the Prescribed Requirements Regulations, as well as those matters which are required to be included in local schemes by paragraph 2 of Schedule 1A to the Local Government Finance Act 1992, as inserted by the Local Government Finance Act 2012, section 10 and Schedule 4.
Town and Village Greens
October 25th, 2012 by James Goudie KC in Land, Goods and ServicesIn Barkas v North Yorkshire County Council [2012] EWCA Civ 1373 CA held that a playing field, which had been acquired by a local authority under s80(1) of the Housing Act 1936 (now s12 of HA 1985), and thereafter maintained as a recreation ground, had been appropriated for the purpose of public recreation, and that, since the authority had an express statutory power to maintain the field for recreation purposes, local inhabitants using the field had been doing so, not “as of right” but rather “by right”. Therefore the field could not be registered as a town or village green. S10 of the Open Spaces Act 1906, considered by HL in R (Beresford) v Sunderland City Council [2004] 1 AC 889, is not the only example of land which is provided by a local authority as open space which the public use for recreational purposes “by right”.
Public Sector Equality Duty (“PSED”)
October 24th, 2012 by James Goudie KC in Human Rights and Public Sector Equality DutyIn R (RB) V Devon County Council, Judgment 19 October 2012, it was held that a change of provider of an Integrated Children’s Service (“ICS”) engaged the PSED at various stages of the procurement process, including the decision to retain the ICS under a single provider and the award of preferred bidder status, but not the possibility of future (post contract) changes in the provision of the ICS, until the detail of such changes was sufficiently well established. However, anything other than declaratory relief was refused, on account of urgency, the fact that the PSED had been addressed at the intention to award contract stage, lack of detriment to the claimant family, and quashing being detrimental to the children of Devon generally.
Performance Indicators (WALES)
October 24th, 2012 by James Goudie KC in Best ValueThe Local Government (Performance Indicators) (Wales) Order 2012, SI 2012/2539 (W.278) specifies performance indicators for the purpose of s8 in Part 1 of the Local Government Wales Measure 2009, by reference to which Welsh county and county boroughs’ performances will fall to be measured from 1 April 2013. Such “improvement authorities” must make arrangements to exercise their functions so that any applicable performance standard is met. The Order identifies by reference to Schedules which indicators will be used to measure the performance of which functions: Social Services, Housing, Education, Waste Management, Transport and Culture and Sport.