When a decision-maker is minded to make a decision adverse to someone on the basis of their dishonesty or other reprehensible conduct he is required as a matter of procedural fairness to indicate that suspicion clearly and give the applicant an opportunity to respond. This principle has been reaffirmed in Balajigari v SSHD (2019) EWCA Civ 673, from paragraph 46, where the Court of Appeal said:-

“46.    … the question of whether there has been procedural fairness or not is an objective question for the court to decide for itself. The question is not whether the decision-maker has acted reasonably, still less whether there was some fault on the part of the public authority concerned.”

“59.    … although sometimes the duty to act fairly may not require a fair process to be followed before a decision is reached … fairness will usually require that to be done where that is feasible for practical and other reasons. … Read more »

Keep the Horton General v Oxfordshire CCG and Cherwell District Council (2019) EWCA Civ 646 concerns one aspect of the first part of a two-phase consultation exercise upon five proposals. McCombe LJ said:-

Read more »

Following the Divisional Court decision in Hollow v Surrey County Council (2019) EWHC 618 (Admin) on local authority budgets and decisions to reduce expenditure, Supperstone J has decided R (AD) v Hackney LBC (2019) EWHC 943 (Admin), in which, again, the challenge was dismissed, and all the various grounds of challenge rejected. As regards alleged “systemic unlawfulness”, it was not the case that Hackney’s approach inherently would produce failures to comply with the relevant absolute, statutory duty (Section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014). The impact of the reduction upon SEN children and Education and Health Care Plans could be mitigated in individual cases. Nor was a banded system an intrinsically unlawful way to discharge that duty. Further, there was no breach of Section 27 of the 2014 Act, of the PSED, of Section 175 of the Education Act 2002, or of Section 11 of the Children Act 2004. Moreover, no public law consultation was required under Section 27, or the PSED or at common law. There was no legitimate expectation of consultation. It was not required in order to avoid “conspicuous unfairness”. There was compliance with the Tameside duty to equip oneself with adequate information.

On acting as a judge in one’s own cause, legitimate expectation, and ECHR Article 8, see the Divisional Court Judgment in R (Sargeant) v First Minister of Wales (2019) EWHC 739 (Admin). A Press Statement issued by the First Minister stating that there would be an Independent Inquiry into actions of his was held to give rise to an enforceable legitimate expectation that he would himself have no involvement in the preparatory work for the Inquiry.   That expectation was breached by him by setting the remit for the drafting of the Operational Protocol governing the Inquiry and by his control over the final form of that Protocol.

The issue before the Court of Appeal (Longmore, David Richards and Leggatt LJJ) in Merthyr (South Wales) Ltd v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council (2019) EWCA Civ 526 was one of interpretation of a contract to establish an escrow account.

Read more »

Case C-101/18, Idi v Arcadis, CJEU Judgment on 28 March 2019, concerns the exclusion of Idi from participating in a tendering procedure for a public services contract.

Read more »

In Thompson v Conwy County Borough Council (2019) EWHC 746 (Admin) Dove J addressed at paragraphs 20-22 inclusive the law relating to the discretion whether or not to grant planning permission, and at paragraph 24 the legal principles governing an allegation that members have been misled by the advice which they have received from their officers.  In that latter connection Dove J said:-

“Firstly, the case-law has made clear that it is a reasonable inference where members follow the recommendation of their officers that they can be taken to have adopted the reasoning and explanation provided in the Committee report and any other presentation to them by officers. When approaching the examination of the Committee report the courts have made clear that criticisms will not merit consideration unless the overall effect of the report has been to significantly mislead the Committee about the material considerations bearing on their decision. Reports should also be approached on the basis that they are being read by a knowledgeable readership in the form of a Planning Committee of trained council members, with a substantial local background knowledge of the area which they represent and a broad familiarity with local development plan policies. Thus officer reports should be read as a whole and in a common sense manner, bearing in mind they are addressed to an informed readership rather than construed as a statute or other similar legal instrument, and that they were intended to be a practical decision-taking tool.”

R (Hollow) v Surrey County Council (2019) EWHC 618 (Admin) is now the leading case on challenges to local authority budgets. The challenge failed on all grounds. It was particularly focussed on savings in relation to special educational needs and disabilities (“SSEND”).
Read more »

In R (Alliance of Turkish Businesspeople Ltd) v SSHD (2019) EWHC 603 (Admin) issues were raised about a substantive legitimate expectation derived from published guidance and a change of policy by SSHD. The claim for judicial review was dismissed. The Judge did find both that there was a “clear and unambiguous”

Read more »

In North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust v Dr Andrew Gregg (2019) EWCA Civ 387 it was held that the employer was not entitled to withhold pay during a period of suspension not imposed by way of sanction. Coulson LJ said, at paragraphs 69 and 71, that, in a situation where the contract does not address the issue of pay deduction during suspension, the default position should be that, in the ordinary case, where allegations are disputed, suspension should not attract the deduction of pay.

Read more »