The Coughlan principles apply within the ambit of a consultation being undertaken. They cannot be used to contend that the scope of the consultation should have been wider. So stated by Holgate J at para 196 in R (BT Pension Scheme Trustees Ltd) v UK Statistics Authority (2022) EWHC 2265 (Admin).
In R (Challis) v SoS for Health and Social Care (2022) EWHC 2269 (Admin) Steyn J at para 73 addresses the legal principles in circumstances where the sole ground of judicial review is irrationality. It is for the Court to determine whether, viewed objectively, the decision is outside the range of reasonable decisions open to the decision-maker. Unequal treatment is not a distinct ground of review. In assessing an allegation of unequal treatment the question is whether irrational distinctions have been drawn between different groups. Consistency is a generally desirable objective. It is not an absolute rule.
Exclusion of Committee members from voting was one of the issues in R ( Spitalfields Historic Building Trust ) v Tower Hamlets LBC ( 2022 ) EWHC 2262 ( Admin ). The Judge’s analysis in relation to this begins at para 111. The starting point is that every member of a local authority council or committee has a prima facie entitlement to vote at a relevant meeting. Any restriction of the entitlement requires statutory authority. Where consideration of a planning application is deferred, the two meetings form part of a single decision-making process. A local authority is entitled, by provision in its Constitution, to say that, as far as possible, members should be present for all of that process in order to vote. Such a provision constitutes the regulation of “ proceedings and business “ of the committee, within the power in para 42 of Sch 12 to the Local Government Act 1972.
The Appeal in HXA v Surrey County Council (2022 ) EWCA Civ 1196 involves consideration of the circumstances in which a local authority, and/or the social workers for whom it is vicariously liable, owe a duty of care toa child to whom the local authority is providing child protection services. The Court of Appeal’s Conclusions are set out from paragraph 90 to 110.. A duty of care cannot arise simply as a result of the authority’s general duties, but may arise as a result of its specific exercise of its specific duties to a child if, on a case by case basis and the specific facts of the case, the circumstances amount to an assumption of responsibility for the child, and the circumstances in which an authority may assume responsibility for a child are not confined to cases where it acquires parental responsibility under a care order.
Gardiner v Hertsmere Borough Council (2022) EWCA Civ 1162 raises a question of statutory interpretation about the exemption from liability for “self-build” housing development under Regs 54A and 54B of the CIL Regs. The question is whether that exemption is available when planning per is granted retrospectively for such development. The answer is that it is not.
Trail Riders v SoS (2022) EWHC 1804 ( Admin ) concerns extinguishment of a public right of way under Section 67(1) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 and the exceptions in Section 67(2). Syeyn J said that the exceptions should not be construed restrictively.
In relation to Section 67(2) (a) what was required was a factual assessment of whether the main lawful use by the public of the route during the 5 year period to 2 May 2006 was for mechanically propelled vehicles or not. The word “ main “ denoted chief or predominant use. The statutory provision did not direct the decision-maker as to the factors that should be taken into account. In making an assessment the character of the way was not a mandatory relevant consideration.
The new regime is due to come into force Autumn 2022. It will consist primarily of the provisions in the subsidy control chapters of the Trade & Co-Operation Agreement with the EU, the Subsidy Control Act 2022, Regulations and Guidance from BEIS and the CMA. BEIS is currently consulting on Guidance under Section 79 of the Act.
In a claim for damages for breach of contract by way of wrongful dismissal of an employee, as in Mackenzie v AA Ltd (2022) EWCA Civ 901, the least burdensome mode of performance, and the least costly method of lawfully terminating the contract, should be adopted. The Court of Appeal holds that it should, for the purpose of determining the employee claimant’s loss, be assumed that the employer would have performed its contractual obligations in the least burdensome way possible. Damages could not confer benefits which the contract did not oblige the employer to confer.
When a homeless person applies to a local housing authority (LHA) for accommodation, the LHA needs to decide whether the applicant has become homeless intentionally. That may be the case if the applicant was evicted from their “last settled accommodation” for non-payment of rent which was affordable for them. Affordability depends on whether the applicant could have been able both to pay the rent and meet their “reasonable living expenses”. In BAPTIE v KINGSTON UPON THAMES RLBC (2022) EWCA Civ 888 the LHA decided that both could have been done. The question raised by the appeal was whether that affordability decision was unlawful, because it was based on an irrational approach to the assessment of the applicant’s reasonable living expenses. The decision was ruled to have been lawful.
The Association of Housing Advice Services (AHAS) has produced Guidance, “Evidence base for cost of living and guidance for caseworkers”. The LHA’s Review Officer had not erred in relying on it. It was reliable objective evidence to which a Review Officer could have regard. SAMUELS v BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (2019) UKSC 28 is not authority to the contrary. See paragraphs 50-54 and 60-63 of the Judgment of Warby LJ, which with Asplin and Peter Jackson LLH agreed.