Dr B v GMC (2018) EWCA Civ 1497 is a “mixed data case”. The majority of the Court of Appeal has ruled that in such a case there is no presumption under the DPA of non-disclosure. Sales LJ said:-
Injunctions
July 3rd, 2018 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and LitigationIn North Warwickshire Borough Council v Persons Unknown (2018) EWHC 1603 (QB) the High Court granted an injunction prohibiting “street cruising” in a local authority area. The jurisdiction to make the injunction was as follows.
PSED and Planning
June 25th, 2018 by James Goudie KC in Human Rights and Public Sector Equality DutyR (Buckley) v Bath and North East Somerset Council (2018) EWHC 1551 (Admin) was a claim for judicial review of a decision by the LPA to grant outline planning permission for a residential development comprising the demolition of up to 542 dwellings and the provision of up to 700 dwellings. One of the grounds of challenge was alleged breach of the PSED. Did the PSED apply to the grant of outline planning permission. Lewis J said as to the applicability of the PSED:- Read more »
Complaint of Member Misconduct
June 21st, 2018 by James Goudie KC in StandardsIn Bennis v Stratford-on-Avon District Council, EA/2017/0220, the FTT said (para 29) that details of unsubstantiated complaints against Councillors ought not generally to be disclosed to the world at large under the provisions of FOIA. The proper approach to such information is to consider the rights of the councillor concerned as a data subject.
The FTT however did not consider exemptions under Section 36 of FOIA to prevail. The request for disclosure was of advice that the Council had received when considering the complaint that was not upheld. The advice had been provided to the MO by an Independent Person (“the IP”) under the Localism Act 2011. Given that the IP’s views would in any event have become public if a hearing had been directed, transparency prevailed over the risk of disclosure inhibiting the IP’s views.
HMOs
June 21st, 2018 by James Goudie KC in HousingMHCLG has issued detailed non-statutory Guidance for Local Housing Authorities, “Houses in Multiple Occupation and residential property licensing reform”, on the implementation of requirements set out in 2018 Statutory Instruments on the licensing of HMOs. The scope of mandatory licensing has been extended so that properties used as HMOs in England which house 5 people or more in two or more separate households will in many cases require a licence. The minimum size to be applied to rooms used for sleeping accommodation has been deferred. Requirements have been added relating to the provision of refuse disposal in licensed properties.
Chapter 2 of the Guidance relates to the extension of mandatory HMO licensing, including implementation and transitional provisions. Chapter 3 relates to new mandatory licence conditions, that is mandatory sleeping room sizes and waste disposal requirements, including sanctions.
Allocation and Homelessness
June 19th, 2018 by James Goudie KC in HousingThe Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Eligibility) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2018, SI 2018/730, coming into force on 9 July 2018, amend the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Eligibility) (England) Regulations 2006 in order to make a new category of persons eligible for an allocation of social housing and homelessness assistance. They make provision for persons who have been transferred to the United Kingdom under the Immigration Act 2016 s.67 and have limited leave to remain under para. 352ZH of the Immigration Rules to be eligible for an allocation of social housing and homeless assistance if they are “habitually resident” in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or the Republic of Ireland.
Read more »
Damages
June 15th, 2018 by James Goudie KC in HousingIn XPQ v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC (2018) EWHC 1391 (QB) Langstaff J held that Directive 2011/36/EU on Preventing and Combating Trafficking in Human Beings does not enable a trafficked person to claim damages for any failure by a local housing authority to provide accommodation that is safe and appropriate.
Election candidates home address
June 7th, 2018 by James Goudie KC in Elections and BylawsThe mayoral election procedure in R (Jarvis) v SoS for CLG (2018) EWHC 1259 (Admin) was governed by the Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order 2017. The Order (“the 2017 Order”) includes a requirement for candidates to give their home address in full in their nomination papers in circumstances where that address is subsequently published (“the requirement”). Mr Jarvis did not wish to publish his address. He has been the subject of death threats. He considered that publication would endanger his life, or that of members of his family. He sought judicial review of the requirement and of the Returning Officer’s decision that Mr Jarvis had to abide by the requirement. Read more »
Planning Obligations
June 6th, 2018 by James Goudie KC in Planning and EnvironmentalIn Good Energy Generation Ltd v SoS for CLG and Cornwall Council (2018) EWHC 1270 (Admin) concerns the Council’s refusal to grant planning permission for a wind farm development. The refusal was upheld by the SoS and the Inspector. Lang J declined to quash that decision. The case is concerned with planning obligations and Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010, which provides a statutory limitation on the use of planning obligations. The developer submitted that in assessing the planning balance it was an error of law to disregard the benefits offered by the developer in a unilateral undertaking made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The benefits offered included a community investment scheme open to local residents and a reduced electricity tariff open to local residents.
Lang J said, at paragraph 71, that the tests in Regulation 122 are “more stringent” than the general test as to the materiality of a planning obligation, and “go wider” than the previous law. The question of what is “necessary” is now a test in law, which it was not beforehand. She held that the Regulation 122 Tests were not satisfied.