MHCLG is consulting on a proposal for the Secretary of State to make a Localism Order under the Localism Act 2011. This is in order to enable Harrogate BC to use GPOC, subject to Parliamentary approval, to host the race finish line for the 2019 UCI Road World Championships on a specific part of the Harrrogate Stray by, for the specific purpose of the Championships, temporarily lifting restrictions in the Harrogate Stray Act 1985. That is a private Act of Parliament. It makes provision for the management by the Council of the Stray. It restricts the Council’s flexibility to act, notwithstanding the significant social and economic benefits to the region that are expected from the event. The Order would follow two previous similar Orders.
Development Agreements
November 20th, 2018 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and ContractsA development agreement is entered into by a local authority land owner with a private contractor (St Modwen). There has been a competitive process. That complies with the Council’s duty to obtain “best consideration” on a land disposal, pursuant to its duty under Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 (and its “best value” duty). A challenge to its compliance with the Section 123 duty fails, at first instance, and is not pursued on appeal. However, there had been no procurement process, as would be required, not for a land transaction, or transaction whose “main object” was a land transaction, but for a public works contract. A challenge in this respect also failed at first instance, but has been pursued on appeal.
Public contracts
October 25th, 2018 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and ContractsWhat is a contract for pecuniary interest? What is a public contract? What therefore is the scope of the public procurement regime? Do the Teckal or Hamburg Waste derogations apply? These were the questions before the ECJ in Case C-606/17 IBA Molecular Italy Sri v Aziende ULSS No. 3.
“Public contracts” for the purpose of that regime are of course contracts “for pecuniary interest” concluded in writing between one or more economic operators and one or more contracting authorities and having as their object the execution of works, the supply of products or the provision of services within the meaning of this Directive. “Contracting authorities” means the State, regional or local authorities, “bodies governed by public law”, associations formed by one or several of such authorities or one or several of such bodies governed by public law. Read more »
Bias
October 19th, 2018 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and ContractsWhen does involvement at an earlier stage give rise to an appearance of bias? That was the issue in Stubbs v The Queen [2018] UKPC 30.
Two sub-issues were whether it was material that the previously involved individual would now be part of a panel; and whether any apprehension of bias was assuaged by the passage of time. Neither factor was accepted as being a sufficient justification for non-recusal. Read more »
Consultation
October 5th, 2018 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and ContractsIn R (Help Refugees Ltd) v SSHD (2018) EWCA Civ 2098 the Court of Appeal has restated propositions in relation to the scope of a duty to consult, as follows:-
(1) Irrespective of how the duty to consult has been generated, the common law duty of procedural fairness will inform the manner in which the consultation should be conducted;
(2) The public body doing the consulting must put a consultee into a position properly to consider and respond to the consultation request, without which the consultation process would be defeated. Consultees must be told enough – and in sufficiently clear terms – to enable them to make an intelligent response. Therefore, a consultation will be unfair and unlawful if the proposer fails to give sufficient reasons for a proposal, or where the consultation paper is materially misleading, or so confused that it does not reasonably allow a proper and effective response.
(3) The content of the duty – what the duty requires of the consultation – is fact-specific and can vary greatly from one context to another, depending on the particular provision in question, including its context and purpose. The requirements being linked particularly to the purpose of the consultation.
(4) A consultation may be unlawful if it fails to achieve the purpose for which the duty to consult was imposed.
(5) The Courts will not lightly find that a consultation process is unfair. Unless there is a specification as to the matters that are to be consulted upon, it is for the public body charged with performing the consultation to determine how it is to be carried out, including the manner and extent of the consultation, subject only to review by the Court on conventional judicial review grounds. Therefore, for a consultation to be found to be unlawful, “clear unfairness must be shown”.
(6) The product of the consultation must be conscientiously taken into account before finalising any decision.
Read more »
Legitimate Expectation
October 5th, 2018 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and ContractsIn R (Save Britain’s Heritage) v SoS for CLG and Westminster City Council (2018) EWCA Civ 2137 the Court of Appeal considered whether there was a legitimate expectation that reasons would be given, based on a promise. The Court reaffirmed (paragraph 39) that in such a case the position is that, if a public body indicates a clear and unequivocal policy that will be followed and applied in a particular type of case, then an individual is entitled to expect that policy to be operated, unless and until a reasonable decision is taken that the policy be modified or withdrawn, or implementation interferes with that body’s other statutory duties. Read more »
Concession Contracts
October 1st, 2018 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and ContractsIn Ocean Outdoor UK Ltd v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC (2018) EWHC 2508 (TCC) the Claimant challenged the decision by the defendant (“the Council”), to enter into arrangements with Outdoor Plus Limited (“Outdoor Plus”) for the leasing of two plots of land and operation of two metal towers, with media screens and supportive software, one on each plot, in West London (“the Two Towers”) following a tender exercise.
Staff Transfers
August 29th, 2018 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and ContractsIn Nicholls v Croydon LBC and Hacker v Croydon LBC, UKEAT/0033 and 0004/18/RN, the employment of the Claimants (BMA Appellants and Unite Appellants) transferred on 1 April 2013 from the Croydon Primary Care Trust (“the Trust”) to the London Borough of Croydon (“the Council”). In connection with the transfer, the Secretary of State made the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (Croydon Primary Care Trust) Staff Transfer Scheme 2013 (“the Staff Transfer Scheme”). He did so in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 300 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Read more »
Consultation / Tameside
August 16th, 2018 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and ContractsIn R ( Langton ) v SoS for DEFRA ( 2018 ) EWHC 2190 ( Admin ) Sir Ross Cranston restated principles in relation to consultation as follows.
Para 104 : there is a “ high threshold” of being “ clearly and radically wrong “ so as to render a consultation procedurally unfair and thus unlawful.
Para 105 : a consultation has to be considered in its statutory context.
Para 106 : once a consultation is launched it must be carried out fairly, but the statutory context is relevant when considering the performance of the consultation duty, the specific matters on which to consult, and the basis upon which the consultation should proceed.
Para 109 : only in exceptional cases and special circumstances is reference required to “ discarded alternatives”.
Para 115: as to how consultation responses are addressed, for unlawfulness the claimant must establish that a matter was such that no reasonable decision maker would have failed in the circumstances to take into account as a relevant consideration. Read more »
Budget Allocation
August 14th, 2018 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and ContractsIn R ( KE ) v Bristol City Council ( 2018 ) EWHC 2103 ( Admin ) the Court quashed the Council’s High Needs Block budget allocation, which reduced expenditure on Special Educational Needs. The Judge found that there had been a duty to consult by reason of the duty of inquiry under the PSED, Section 27 of the Children and Families Act 2014, and common law. He also found that there was a breach of Section 11 of the Children Act 2004.