The Local Authorities etc (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Meetings) ( England and Wales) Regulations 2020, S.I. 2020/392 contain 4 Parts. Part 1, Regs 1-3, is General. It and Part 4, Police and Crime Panels, apply to England and Wales. Parts 2 and 3 apply to England only. Part 2 relates to Remote Attendance and consists of Regs 4&5. Part 3 relates to Modification of Meetings and Public Access Requirements. It consists of Regs 6-17. The Regs apply to Meetings that are required to be held, or held, before 7 May next year. Reg 3 relates to Interpretation, including “local authority” and “local authority meeting”.
Remote Attendance, Meetings and Public Access
April 3rd, 2020 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and Contracts
Caravan Site
April 2nd, 2020 by James Goudie KC in Planning and EnvironmentalAmber Valley BC v Haytop Country Park Ltd (2020) UKUT 68 (LC) is concerned with a caravan site licence under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, as amended, and 2014 Regulations there under. There was a dispute, which is in the course of determination, as to whether the proposed use by Haytop would be a breach of planning consent. The UT rules that the FTT should not have required the grant of a licence by the Council to Haytop where what Haytop wanted to do might be outside the terms of the current planning permission.
Meetings
April 2nd, 2020 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and ContractsThe Local Authorities etc ( Flexibility of Meetings ) Regulations 2020, S.I. 2020/392, have been made on 1 April 2020, and come into force on 4 April 2020, enabling local authority meetings to be held remotely. They are not identical to the draft Regulations.
Homelessness Appeals
April 2nd, 2020 by James Goudie KC in HousingIn James v Hertsmere BC (2020) EWCA 489 rules that the scope of Section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 on appeal to the County Court on point of law in homelessness cases extends to the full range of issues that would otherwise be the subject of an application to the Administrative Court for judicial review. The Court also held that when there is constitutionally delegated authority to extend an intra vires contract, such as a contract that contracts out the Section 202 review function, then, if the extension may not have been done validly at the time, it can be ratified.
References to ECJ
April 2nd, 2020 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and LitigationCourts in the UK continue to be obliged to refer to the European Court of Justice cases involving unclear EU law. The Supreme Court made such a reference on 1 April 2020 in Zipvit v HMRC (2020) UKSC 15.
HMOs
April 2nd, 2020 by James Goudie KC in HousingA local authority had been entitled to impose on the holder of a licence under a Selective Licensing Scheme pursuant to Section 90 of the Housing Act 2004 a condition requiring him to undergo a training course on how to manage tenancies. So held in Berg v Burnley BC (2020) UKUT 91 (LC).
Vicarious Liability
April 1st, 2020 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and LitigationThe Supreme Court has unanimously allowed appeals in WM Morrisons Supermarkets v Various Claimants (2020) UKSC 12 and in Barclays Bank v Various Claimants (2020) UKSC 13. No vicarious liability in either case. The former concerned an employee, the latter an independent contractor. Vicarious liability applies to employees and near employees. It does not apply to classic independent contractors.
Procurement
March 30th, 2020 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and ContractsProcurement Policy Note 01/20 on Responding to COVID-19 has now been followed by Procurement Policy Note on Supplier Relief due to COVID-19.
Double Dutch
March 30th, 2020 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and ContractsCase C- 344/18, ISS FACILITY SERVICES, in which the ECJ gave Judgment on 26 March 2020, concerned public buildings in Ghent, a public contract for cleaning services, and the transfer of that contract to multiple transferred. What happened to the rights and obligations arising from the contracts of employment with the transferor? Did they transfer only to the transferee for whom the worker will perform his or her principal tasks? “ No”, says the ECJ. Or will they transfer to each of the transferred, in proportion to the tasks performed by that worker?