Liability

November 6th, 2013 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation

Should an order for specific disclosure be made in a judicial review application even before permission has been granted and where permission has been refused on paper?   That was the issue raised in R (Sky Blue Sorts & Leisure Ltd) v Coventry City Council [2013] EWHC 3366 (Admin), where such disclosure was refused.

Mr Justice Silber observed that the application was “extremely unusual”, having been made after Males J had already determined on the papers that the Claimants’ grounds of review were unarguable.  Silber J noted that neither he nor any of his colleagues knew of any case in which an order for specific disclosure had been made on a judicial review claim before permission had been granted.

The Claimants argued that disclosure of certain documents referred to in the Council’s Summary Grounds of Resistance and supporting materials was “necessary” in order to resolve their application for permission ‘fairly and justly’, as required by the test in Tweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland [2007] 1 AC 650.

Silber J rejected these arguments and agreed with the Council that further disclosure was not necessary at this stage. In particular, His Lordship held that:

– “A renewed permission application is a different animal from a substantive hearing”, and permission would be granted where “on a quick perusal of the material then available, the court thinks that it discloses what might on further consideration turn out to be an arguable case” (citing Lord Diplock in R v IRC ex p. Nat-Fed [1982] AC 617). In those circumstances, the Claimants already had “enough material to put forward a respectable case (if not their very best case) on most of the issues to be raised on the renewed permission application”; and

– There was no reason why the Claimants could not point to the Council’s decision not to disclose certain documents at the permission hearing, in order to support their argument that permission should be granted to investigate all of the facts in full.

His Lordship also mentioned that, if he had not dismissed the application for those reasons, then he might have dismissed it in any event, if he had concluded that the documents sought were not “highly relevant” to the issues, or because of the Claimants’ delay in making the application, which would have caused “serious prejudice” to the Council if the oral renewal hearing (listed for late November 2013) had to be postponed.

The owners of Coventry City Football Club had been refused permission to seek judicial review of the Council’s decision to loan £14.4m to the company that manages the Ricoh Arena (“ACL”), where the club used to play its home games. 

The Claimants argue that the loan was an unlawful State Aid, and that the Council had made the loan for the improper purpose of seeking “to compel [the Claimants] to relinquish ownership of the Club”. The Claimants also argue that the loan was irrational and ultra vires, and that the Council was guilty of misfeasance in public office.

After considering the application on the papers, Mr Justice Males on 31 July 2013held that:-

The claim had not been brought promptly, having been filed on the last day of the 3 month time limit or 1 day late, and there was no good reason for the delay;

– It was unarguable that the Council’s loan to ACL was a State Aid. The loan was made on commercial terms, and in order to protect the Council’s investment in ACL, in which it is a 50% shareholder; and

– The Claimants’ other grounds of review were also unarguable. The Council took its decision in order to protect its investment in ACL, and not in order to harm the Claimants’ commercial interests or to force them to relinquish ownership of the Club.

 

Liability

October 23rd, 2013 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation

The appeal to the Supreme Court in Woodland v Essex County Council [2013] UKSC 66 arose from a tragic incident at a swimming pool in Essex when the appellant suffered a serious hypoxic brain injury during a school swimming lesson.  She was then aged 10.  She was a pupil at a Junior School for which the County Council as local education authority, was responsible. The swimming lesson took place in normal school hours, as required by the National Curriculum.

The appellant was assigned to a group being taught by a swimming teacher.  A lifeguard was also in attendance. It was alleged on the appellant’s behalf that both negligently failed to notice that she had got into difficulties in the water, causing her to suffer the injury. Neither was employed by the Council.  Their services had been provided to the Council pursuant to a contract.

The appellant issued proceedings for negligence against a number of parties, including the Council. Her case against the Council included an allegation that it owed her a “non-delegable duty of care”, with the result that it was liable for any negligence on the part of either the teacher or the lifeguard.  The Council denied that it owed such a duty.  It applied to strike out this allegation against it.

The allegation was struck out in the High Court.  This decision was upheld in the Court of Appeal.

However, the Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal against the order striking out the allegation of a non-delegable duty. The case will now return to the High Court to determine whether the appellant was in fact a victim of negligence.

The question before the Court was the scope of the Council’s duty to pupils in its care: was it a duty to take reasonable care in the performance of the functions entrusted to it only if it performed those functions itself, through its own employees; or was it to procure that reasonable care was taken in their performance by whomever it might get to perform them – a non-delegable duty?

The starting point is that non-delegable duties of care are inconsistent with the fault-based principles on which the law of negligence is based.  They are therefore exceptional.   However, English law has recognised that non-delegable duties can arise in cases with the following characteristics:

 (1)              the claimant is a patient or child or for some other reason is especially vulnerable or dependent on the protection of the defendant against the risk of injury;

(2)              there is an antecedent relationship between the claimant and the defendant independent of the negligent act or omission itself (i) which puts the claimant in the actual custody, charge or care of the defendant, and (ii) from which it is possible to impute to the defendant the assumption of a positive duty to protect the claimant from harm in the performance of those obligations and not just a duty to refrain from conduct which will foreseeably damage the claimant;

(3)              the claimant has no control over how the defendant chooses to perform those obligations;

(4)              the defendant has delegated some function which is an integral part of the positive duty which he has assumed towards the claimant and the third party is exercising the defendant’s custody or care of the claimant and the element of the control that goes with it; and

(5)              the third party has been negligent in the performance of the very function assumed by the defendant and delegated by the defendant to him.

The Supreme Court says that it is fair, just and reasonable to impose such duties. It is consistent with the long-standing policy of the law to protect those who are inherently vulnerable and subject to a significant degree of control. It is wholly reasonable that a school should be answerable for the performance of part of its own educational function. Parents are required by law to entrust their child to a school and have no knowledge or influence over the arrangements that the school may make to delegate specialised functions, or the competence of the delegates. It is not an open ended liability and will only cover functions which the school has assumed for itself a duty to perform rather than to arrange for its performance, and only where control over the child has been delegated. The recognition of this duty has become more significant as a result of increased outsourcing of educational and supervisory functions but only replaces duties which the school formerly owed when the functions were performed by its staff.

On the facts of this case, as pleaded by the appellant, the Council had delegated the control of the appellant to third parties to carry out an integral part of its teaching function during school hours, in a place where the school chose to carry out this part of its functions. If it is found that the third parties were negligent, then the Council will be in breach of duty.

 

Litigation

June 11th, 2013 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation

The Civil Procedure (Amendment No.4) Rules 2013, SI 2013/1412 (L.14), in force from 1 July 2013, provide that planning judicial reviews must be brought within 6 weeks, procurement judicial reviews must be brought within the same time limits as in the Public Contracts Regulations, and that claims certified as totally without merit on the papers may not renew to an oral hearing.

 

Liability

April 17th, 2013 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation

Section 77 of the Building Act 1984 (“the 1984 Act”) relates to dangerous buildings.  If it appears to a local authority that a building or structure, or part of a building or structure, is in such a condition, or is used to carry such loads, as to be dangerous, the authority may apply to a magistrates’ court, and the court may, where danger arises from the condition of the building or structure, make an order requiring the owner thereof to execute such work as may be necessary to obviate the danger or, if he so elects, to demolish the building or structure, or any dangerous part of it, and remove any rubbish resulting from the demolition, or where danger arises from overloading of the building or structure, make an order restricting its use until a magistrates’ court, being satisfied that any necessary works have been executed, withdraws or modifies the restriction.

Section 78 of the 1984 Act relates to emergency measures in the case of dangerous buildings. Subsection (1) provides that, if it appears to a local authority that a building or structure, or part of a building or structure, is in such a state, or is used to carry such loads, as to be dangerous, and immediate action should be taken to remove the danger, they may take such steps as may be necessary for that purpose.

Subsection (7) of Section 78 provides that where in consequence of the exercise of the powers conferred by Section 78 the owner or occupier of any premises “sustains damage”, but Section 106(1) of the 1984 Act does not apply, because the owner or occupier “has been in default”, the owner or occupier may apply to a magistrates’ court to determine whether the local authority were justified in exercising their powers under this section so as to occasion the damage sustained, and if the court determines that the local authority were not so justified, the owner or occupier is entitled to compensation, and section 106(2) and (3) applies in relation to any dispute as regards compensation arising under the subsection.

Section 106 provides (emphasis added):-

            “(1) A local authority shall make full compensation to a person who has sustained damage by reason of the exercise by the authority, in relation to a matter as to which he has not himself been in default, of any of their powers under this Act.

(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, any dispute arising under this section as to the fact of damage, or as to the amount of compensation, shall be determined by arbitration.

(3) If the compensation claimed does not exceed £50, all questions as to the fact of damage, liability to pay compensation and the amount of compensation may on the application of either party be determined by, and any compensation awarded may be recovered before, a magistrates’ court.”

Manolete Partners PLC v Hastings Borough Council [2013] EWHC 842 (TCC), Judgment on 12 April 2013, concerned the entitlement of the Claimant to make a claim against the Council under Section 106 of the 1984 Act for compensation as a result of the Council exercising its powers to prevent access to Hastings Pier under Section 78.  The Council’s main defence was that the Claimant was “in default” and therefore Section 106 did not apply.  Ramsey J rejected this defence.  He held that “default” required breach of an obligation to do something imposed by the 1984 Act itself, and did not extend to breach of a provision of another statute. The Claimant tenant of a bingo hall and amusement arcade on the Pier was not in default of any of the provisions of the 1984 Act.  The party in default was the owner of the Pier structure, who was responsible for its dangerous condition or state.

 

 

Judicial Review For Judicial Review For Error Of Fact

November 26th, 2012 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation

Richmond-upon-Thames LBC v Kubicek [2012] EWCA 3292 (QB) is not a judicial review case, but it is of significance in relation to a judicial review or similar challenge based on a material error of fact giving rise to unfairness.  The Richmond case was itself a statutory appeal.  It raised an issue as to when, if ever, it is permissible for a County Court, hearing an appeal under s204 of the Housing Act 1985, on “any point of law” arising from a review decision made by a local housing authority in a homelessness case, to receive evidence on, and decide a question of fact relevant to, the review decision.  It is well established that an appeal “on any point of law” is in substance the same as a judicial review.  One of the issues on the appeal was whether new evidence which Mrs Kubicek sought to adduce was relevant to any issue on the s204 appeal.

It was common ground that under the statutory scheme of Part VII of the 1985 Act questions of fact are generally for the local housing authority making the review decision to determine.  For that reason, the usual process on any appeal pursuant to s204 is for the matter to be determined on the basis of submissions as to the rationality and propriety of the review decision in the light of the material before the reviewing officer at the time of the decision. Evidence which was not before the reviewing officer is not usually relevant.  The authorities, however, indicate that there are two purposes for which fresh evidence may be relevant on a s204 appeal. One such purpose is to show how the review decision was reached, including what material was before the reviewing officer and what procedure was followed. These matters may be relevant where, for example, it is alleged that there has been a failure to comply with the requirements of natural justice. An allegation that the decision-making process was tainted by misconduct on the part of someone involved in it would fall into this category. Where such an allegation is made, it is for the court to find the relevant facts, and evidence will be relevant and admissible to prove the misconduct or other alleged procedural impropriety.

A second purpose for which it is now clear that evidence may be relevant is to demonstrate that the decision subject to appeal was based on a material error of fact giving rise to unfairness. In the leading case of E and R v Home Secretary [2004] QB 1044, the Court of Appeal reviewed the authorities bearing on the question of whether, and if so when, a decision reached on an incorrect basis of fact can be challenged on an appeal limited to points of law. Carnwath LJ, as he then was (who gave the judgment of the Court) concluded at [66]:

“In our view, the time has now come to accept that a mistake of fact giving rise to unfairness is a separate head of challenge in an appeal on a point of law, at least in those statutory contexts where the parties share an interest in co-operating to achieve the correct result. Asylum law is undoubtedly such an area. Without seeking to lay down a precise code, the ordinary requirements for a finding of unfairness are … First, there must have been a mistake as to an existing fact, including a mistake as to the availability of evidence on a particular matter. Secondly, the fact or evidence must have been “established”, in the sense that it was uncontentious and objectively verifiable. Thirdly, the appellant (or his advisers) must not been have been responsible for the mistake. Fourthly, the mistake must have played a material (not necessarily decisive) part in the tribunal’s reasoning.”

In the Richmond case Leggatt J made four observations about this important statement of principle. The first is that in the way that this ground of review has been analysed by the Court of Appeal the purpose for which evidence is potentially relevant can be seen as an extension of the first purpose – that is, to show how the review decision was reached. In connection with this ground, evidence may be relevant to show not only what material was before the reviewing officer but also that evidence was available which was not placed before the reviewing officer and how that came about.

Second, although the Court of Appeal explained this ground of review as based on a principle of fairness, it is clear that the question whether there has been unfairness is not to be determined independently of the four requirements identified by the Court of Appeal; rather, the unfairness arises from the combination of factors which exist when those requirements are all met: see the analysis at [63].

Third, although the Court of Appeal suggested that the principle may be limited to “those statutory contexts where the parties share an interest in co-operating to achieve the correct result”, it is difficult to think of any context in which it would not be said that a public authority exercising a statutory function has an interest in ensuring that its decision is made on an accurate factual basis. Certainly decisions about housing assistance must fall within the scope of the principle as much as the decisions about asylum and planning control to which Carnwath LJ referred at [64].

Fourth, the second of the four requirements stated by Carnwath LJ is clearly of critical importance, but may possibly need some fine tuning. If, in order to decide that there has been a material mistake of fact, the court was entitled or required to resolve a factual dispute itself, then the court would be substituting its own finding of fact for that of the public body to which Parliament has given that task. Accordingly, to require that the fact has been “established” in the sense of being not merely objectively verifiable but uncontentious seems to be essential if a workable distinction between errors of law and errors of fact is to be maintained. It is less obviously essential that, where the fact about which a mistake is said to have been made is the availability of evidence on a particular matter, the evidence and not just the fact of its availability must be uncontentious. A court would not necessarily be usurping the function of the fact-finding body if it were to require the body to reconsider a decision made without knowledge of credible, even if not uncontentious, evidence which, if the decision-maker had been aware of it, might have led to a different result. A requirement that the evidence must have been uncontentious might also be thought to defeat the point of the Court of Appeal’s indication that the availability of evidence on a particular matter may itself be a relevant fact; for if evidence of a particular fact is uncontentious then so presumably is the fact itself.

 

 

 

Remedies in Judicial Review

October 17th, 2012 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation

In Walton v The Scottish Ministers [2012] UKSC 44, concerned with the construction of an Aberdeen bypass, Lord Carnwath observed, at para 103, that the issue of discretion may in practice be “closely linked” with that of standing, and may be “important in maintaining the overall balance of public interest” in appropriate cases. Lord Carnwath said:

” … I see discretion to some extent as a necessary counterbalance to the widening of rules of standing. The courts may properly accept as “aggrieved”, or as having a “sufficient interest” those who, though not themselves directly affected, are legitimately concerned about damage to wider public interests, such as the protection of the environment. However, if it does so, it is important that those interests should be seen not in isolation, but rather in the context of the many other interests, public and private, which are in play in relation to a major scheme …”

At paragraph 112 Lord Carnwath said:

“The applicant will be refused a remedy, where he complains only of a procedural failure (whether under statutory rules or common law principles), if that failure has caused him personally no substantial prejudice. Where, however, a substantive defect is established, going either to the scope of the statutory powers under which the project was promoted, or to its legality or rationality … the court’s discretion to refuse a remedy will be much more limited. These general principles must of course be read in the context of the statutory framework applicable in a particular case.”

 

Judicial Review

April 23rd, 2012 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation

The Judgment of Lindblom J in The Manydown Co Ltd v Basingstoke and Deane BC [2012] EWHC 977 (Admin) repays attention. The Claimant sought to challenge by judicial review 2 decisions of the Council: (1) the Council’s refusal to reconsider its position on the development of a site that it owns (and is the subject matter of a Joint Development Partnership Agreement with the Claimant); and (2) a decision of the Council’s Cabinet approving a selection of sites for development which did not include this site. The Council had acquired the site under ss226/227 of TCPA 1990 for housing development, and still held it under statutory planning powers. The selection of other sites was in a consultation draft pre-submission Core Strategy which, when adopted, will be the principal component of the LDF for the Council’s area.

There were 3 main issues: (1) whether judicial review was excluded by s113 of Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004; (2) whether the 2 decisions were lawful; and (3) if either or both were unlawful, what relief, if any, should be granted.

On jurisdiction, Lindblom J concluded (paras 81-88) that the proceedings for judicial review were not precluded by s113 of the 2004 Act. The Judge said:-

“83. … the present claim does not seek to question a “relevant document” of the kind to which section 113 refers. It impugns two decisions, each of which, in a different way, affects the parameters of the process that will culminate in the adoption of the Core Strategy under section 23 of the 2004 Act. They are, in that sense, decisions antecedent to, and not part of, the process. …

84. Under the provisions of section 113(1)(c), (2), (3), (4) and (11)(c) it is a development plan document that may be questioned only upon its adoption, and within six weeks of that date – not some prior step on the part of the local planning authority, even one that might vitiate the development plan document itself once it has been adopted. Adoption – or approval, as the case may be – is of more than merely formal significance. It is a defining characteristic of the “strategies, plans and documents” embraced in the statutory jurisdiction under section 113.

85. I cannot see how the preclusive provision in section 113(2) could catch a decision such as that taken by the Council on 15 December 2011. That decision was, in effect, a decision not to promote land owned by the Council in a plan-making process. In my view it lies well beyond the ambit of section 113. It is, however, plainly susceptible to proceedings for judicial review.

86. Nor do I accept that the decision taken by the Council’s Cabinet on 23 January 2012 lies within the reach of the preclusive provision. That decision had the effect of approving a pre-submission draft of the Core Strategy for consultation, the results of which would later inform the preparation of the submission draft. Such a decision does not, in my judgment, constitute a local development document being adopted as such by resolution of the local planning authority. These proceedings were begun before even the pre-submission Core Strategy had crystallized in a document published for consultation. And they do not seek to question any development plan document as such, either adopted or in draft.

87. Therefore, I do not think it is necessary to decide in this case whether a pre-submission draft of a core strategy qualifies as a “relevant document” within section 113. But I would hold that it does not. …

88. The conclusion that these proceedings are not ousted by section 113(2) seems both legally right and pragmatic. In a case such as this an early and prompt claim for judicial review makes it possible to test the lawfulness of decisions taken in the run-up to a statutory process, saving much time and expense – including the expense of public money – that might otherwise be wasted. In principle, it cannot be wrong to tackle errors that are properly amenable to judicial review, when otherwise they would have to await the adoption of the plan before the court can put them right. Improper challenges – including those caught by the ouster provision in section 113(2) – can always be filtered out at the permission stage.”

Turning to lawfulness, at para 94 Lindblom J referred to several “well-known and uncontroversial principles of public law”:-

“(1) When a public body is entrusted with an apparently unfettered discretion, it must exercise its power reasonably and in accordance with the relevant statutory purpose (see Smith v East Elloe RDC [1956] AC 736, in particular the speech of Lord Radcliffe at p.767).

(2) Powers conferred on a local authority by statute can validly be used only in the way that Parliament, when conferring the power, is presumed to have intended (see Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357, in particular the speech of Lord Bingham of Cornhill at p.463D-H).

(3) An authority may not exclude or limit the future exercise by it of its powers (see R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Venables [1998] AC 407, in particular the speech of Lord Browne-Wilkinson at p.496G to p.497B).

(4) If it asks itself the wrong question or misinterprets its powers or makes a mistake of fact, an authority may unlawfully fetter its discretion (see R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union [1995] 2 AC 513, in particular the speech of Lord Browne-Wilkinson at p.551D-E).

(5) An authority generally has a duty to consider whether it should exercise its powers (see Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923, in particular the speech of Lord Hoffmann at p.950B).

(6) An authority may not enter into any contract, or take any action, incompatible with the due exercise of its statutory powers or the discharge of its functions (see Birkdale District Electric Supply Co v Southport Corporation [1926] AC 355, in particular the speech of the Earl of Birkenhead at p.364).

(7) An authority owes a fiduciary duty to its taxpayers, which includes the duty to use the full resources available to it to the best advantage (see Bromley LBC v Greater London Council [1983] AC 768, in particular the speech of Lord Diplock at p.829G to p.830F).

(8) An authority must discharge its functions so as to promote – and not so as to thwart or act contrary to – the policy and objects of the legislation conferring the power under which the land was acquired and is held (see Padfield v Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997, in particular the speech of Lord Reid at p.1030B-D, p.1033A, and p.1045G). In applying the Padfield principle the court must consider the decision-maker’s purpose in the action it took and whether this was it calculated to promote the policy of the Act (see R v Braintree District Council, ex parte Halls (2000) 80 P&CR 266, in particular the judgment of Laws LJ at para.36).

(9) No less clear are the corresponding general principles that govern the functions of a public body as landowner. An authority’s powers as the owner of land are not to be equated with those of a private landowner. It must act to further the statutory object for which it acquired and holds the land, exercising its statutory powers only for the purpose for which those powers were conferred (see R v Somerset County Council, ex parte Fewings [1995] 1 WLR 1037, in particular the judgment of Sir Thomas Bingham MR at p.1042G-H and p.1046B).”

As to familiar principles applying to decision-making by a public body, Lindblom J, at para 95, set out the following:-

(1) An authority must not take into account irrelevant material or fail to take into account that which is relevant (see Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223, in particular the judgment of Lord Greene MR, at pp.233 and 234). It must not act irrationally or perversely (ibid.). In R v Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, ex parte Balchin [1996] EWHC Admin 152 Sedley J, as he then was, summarized the principle (at para. 27):

“[The claimant] does not have to demonstrate, as respondents sometimes suggest is the case, a decision so bizarre that its author must be regarded as temporarily unhinged. What the not very apposite term ‘irrationality’ generally means in this branch of the law is a decision which does not add up – in which, in other words, there is an error of reasoning which robs the decision of logic.”

(2) An authority’s decision would be unlawful if based on a material mistake of fact (see, for example, the judgment of Sullivan J, as he then was, in Haringey LBC v Secretary of State [2008] EWHC 2101, at paras. 11, 12 and 16).

(3) In applying relevant policy, the decision-maker must understand the policy correctly (see the judgment of Woolf J, as he then was, in Gransden v Secretary of State for the Environment (1987) 54 P&CR 86, at p.94). If he departs from policy he must acknowledge that fact, and set out cogent reasons for doing so (see, for example, the judgment of Purchas LJ in Carpets of Worth Ltd v Wyre Forest District Council (1991) 62 P&CR 334, at p.342). Policy statements are to be interpreted objectively in accordance with the language used, read in its proper context (see the judgment of Lord Reed in Tesco Stores Ltd. v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13, at paras. 17 to 21).”

The Judge concluded that:-

(1) Given the statutory power under which the site was acquired and continues to be held, the notion that the site is not available for development lacked any evidential or logical basis: para 135; and

(2) There was a patent inconsistency between the Council’s ownership of the land for the purpose of promoting the development and its persistence in seeking to prevent the site’s allocation in the Core Strategy: para 137.

The Judge said, at para 141:-

“ … I cannot see any escape from the conclusion that the Council’s decision was not only inconsistent with the purpose for which the Manydown land was acquired and held, but plainly contrary to that purpose. It thus offended the principle in Padfield. It was not calculated to promote the policy and objects of the statutory provisions underpinning the acquisition of the site (see the judgment of Laws LJ in ex parte Halls, at para. 36). … the … submission that the Council was seeking to ensure that the land was excluded from consideration in the Core Strategy process seems a reasonable inference to draw from the facts. … The Council has, in effect, sought to use its control of the Manydown site as a means of delaying the development of land that was acquired, with public money, for the express purpose of promoting development. That is not lawful.”

The Judge continued (emphasis added):-

“142. … the decision taken by the Council on 15 December 2011 was such as to fetter its discretion to revisit earlier decisions and to act in the light of circumstances as now they were. … Its effect was to prevent the Council from considering whether to end its self-imposed moratorium on the promotion of development on the Manydown land in time to seek the site’s allocation in the Core Strategy. If the Council’s powers as local planning authority were left unrestrained by the decision, its powers as landowner plainly were not.

143. … The site’s unavailability was, in reality, no more than a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the site was regarded by the Council as being unavailable for development, this was only because the Council itself had decided to treat it as if it were. And it had decided to do this only because it had suspended its promotion of the site for development. At any rate, it should have seen that this was an impediment it could remove, and, with it, the only remaining barrier to its promotion of the site for development …

144. It also seems to me that the decision made by the Council on 15 December 2011 was flawed by a failure to have regard to the purpose for which the Manydown land was acquired. This remained a relevant consideration, and an important one, notwithstanding that the Council was under no specific obligation to promote the site for development at any particular time, or for any particular scheme. …

145. Finally, I think the Council’s reliance on section 1 of the Localism Act was misplaced. … that was not the power under which the Manydown site was acquired, nor the power under which the Council had been managing the land. And, plainly, the Council was not purporting to act under section 1 of the Localism Act when reaching either of the two decisions challenged in these proceedings. That provision is not available to rescue an authority from the consequences of unlawful actions taken before it came into effect. And in my judgment it would not be right for this new power to be relied upon to justify an authority’s use or management of land inconsistently with the statutory purpose for which that land was acquired.

146. I turn to the Council’s Cabinet’s decision of 23 January 2012. In my judgment, in re-affirming its intention to proceed with the presubmission Core Strategy, and approving that document for consultation in a period running from 10 February 2012, on the basis that the Manydown land was not available for development within the meaning of that concept in PPS3, the Cabinet took an unlawful decision. …

147. It is not necessary to repeat everything I have said about the Council’s decision of 15 December 2011. Essentially the same analysis applies. The abiding problem was this. Either the members confused the concept of the site’s availability with the concept of its active promotion for development, or, if they did not, there was no rational basis for considering the land to be unavailable, or unlikely to become available if it commended itself to the Core Strategy Inspector as a strategic allocation. Whichever way one looks at it, therefore, the Cabinet’s decision was flawed.”

Finally, Lindblom J, at para 157, did not accept that he should withhold relief for the unlawfulness. The Claimant’s participation in the Core Strategy process does not afford it an alternative procedure by which to have the lawfulness of the Council’s conduct as landowner of the site subjected to independent scrutiny. At paras 160/161 the Judge said:-

“160. If relief is not granted, it seems unlikely that the Council will relent and consider its position afresh. Above all, however, the Council’s conduct as landowner is not, in itself, a matter for consideration in the plan-making process. The Inspector will have to judge whether the Core Strategy itself is sound, not whether the prior decisions of the Council as landowner were lawfully taken. And … until the Council as landowner has properly addressed its responsibilities in that role, and has done so with a firm grasp of the statutory purpose for which it acquired the Manydown land, the claimant will face an unfair disadvantage as a party to the Core Strategy process. Without the intervention of the court, there seems little prospect of that disadvantage being removed in time for the Manydown site to be effectively and fairly considered in the consultation and subsequent stages of the Core Strategy process.

161 In my judgment, therefore, the unlawfulness in the decisions challenged in these proceedings can and should be addressed by suitable relief. Both quashing and mandatory orders are, in principle, appropriate. The remedies must be sufficient to compel a reconsideration of each of these two decisions, within a reasonable time, but without dictating an outcome that goes further than it should, and without causing needless delay to the Core Strategy process. It is necessary to require the Council to do two things: first, to reconsider its position on the promotion of the Manydown land in the light of what I have said about its responsibilities as landowner, and second, to reconsider the form of its pre-submission Core Strategy in the light of what I have said about its responsibilities as local planning authority. The effect of the order I intend to make should not be misunderstood. It is not to force the Council as landowner to promote the Manydown land for allocation in the Core Strategy. Nor is to force the Council as local planning authority to support such an allocation, or to depart from the strategy it has chosen. Rather, it is to ensure that neither as landowner nor as local planning authority, and neither by anything it does nor by anything it fails to do, will the Council prejudice its own Core Strategy process.”

 

Local Government Bulletin No. 45 Quarter ending November 2011

February 29th, 2012 by James Goudie KC in Best Value, Council Tax and Rates, Elections and Bylaws, Environment, Highways and Leisure, Housing, Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation, Local Authority Powers

 

Bulletin No. 45

LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW 

Bulletin Editor

James Goudie QC

(Chapter 23, Housing,

Christopher Knight)

11 KBW

Temple

London 

This Bulletin covers material available 29 February 2012.

Chapters updated in this Bulletin

Chapter 1: Local Authorities – Relationships and Responsibilities

Chapter 4: Non-Judicial Control of Local Government

Chapter 5: Judicial Control of Local Authorities

Chapter 5A: Local Authorities and the Human Rights Act 1998

Chapter 7: Local Elections

Chapter 8: Local Authority Employment Law

Chapter 10A: The New Ethical Framework

Chapter 11: EC Public Procurement Rules

Chapter 13: Acquisition, Appropriation and Disposal of Land

Chapter 14A: Local Government and Information

Chapter 18: Sources of Funds – Council Tax

Chapter 19: Sources of Funds – Non-Domestic Rating

Chapter 20: Capital Finance

Chapter 23: Housing

Chapter 24: Local Authority Education Law

Chapter 25: Social Services

Chapter 26: Environmental Law

Chapter 27: Highways

***

Chapter 1: Local Authorities – Relationships and Responsibilities

Note the Local Authorities (Referendums) (Petitions) (England) Regulations 2011, SI 2011/2914, on changing to a different form of governance; and the Local Authorities (Conduct of Referendums) (England) Regulations 2012, SI 2012/323.

Chapter 4: Non-Judicial Control of Local Government

On the Local Government Ombudsman, see Dalley v Information Commissioner, EA/2011/0180, FTT Decision on 15 February 2012, which concerned EIR Regulation 12(5)(d), on breach of confidence, and a refusal by the Ombudsman of an information request. The confidentiality was provided by S32(2) of the Local Government Act 1974 in relation to Ombudsman investigations and conducting them efficiently. The question was whether the public interest in maintaining that confidentiality outweighed the public interest in awareness of investigations on environmental issues conducted by the Ombudsman. The subject matter was drainage issues and the alleged failure of the Local Planning Authority to address them in a satisfactory manner. The FTT concluded that the balance of public interests was against disclosure. The FTT emphasized (para 11) that there is a public interest in enabling the Ombudsman to receive information in confidence, so as not to affect adversely his ability to investigate complaints and thus to maintain the accountability and transparency of local government.

Chapter 5: Judicial Control of Local Authorities

Charles Terence Estates Ltd v Cornwall Council on fiduciary duty is reported at [2011] LGR 813.

On when consultation is necessary, and whom to consult, see R (Milton Keynes Council) v SoS CLG [2011] EWCA Civ 1575. On legitimate expectation of consultation, see R (Vieira) v Camden LBC [2012] EWHC 287 (Admin), at paras 58-68 inclusive and 115.

On the Public Sector Equality Duty, see R (Tiller) v East Sussex County Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1577, distinguishing (paras 36-39), R (Harris) v Haringey LBC [2011] PTSR 931 (CA), stating (paras 39-40) that a “relevant light” on the approach the Court should adopt was shed by the decision of the SC in R (McDonald) v Kensington & Chelsea RLBC [2011] PTSR 1266, at paras 23 and 24, and applying the Brown principles; and R (“D” and “S”) v Manchester City Council [2012] EWHC 17 (Admin), stating, at para 61, that it is lawful first to formulate budget proposals and then, at the time of developing policies, to consider the specific impact of proposed policies that might be implemented within the budgetary framework.

Further on the Public Sector Equality Duty, see R (Hurley) v SoS for BIS [2012] EWHC 201 (Admin), in which Elias J said:

“77. … I do not accept … that it is for the court to determine whether appropriate weight has been given to the duty. Provided the court is satisfied that there has been a rigorous consideration of the duty, so that there is a proper appreciation of the potential impact of the decision on equality objectives and the desirability of promoting them, then … it is for the decision maker to decide how much weight should be given to the various factors informing the decision.

78. The concept of “due regard” requires the court to ensure that there has been a proper and conscientious focus on the statutory criteria, but if that is done, the court cannot interfere with the decision simply because it would have given greater weight to the equality implications of the decision than did the decision maker. In short, the decision maker must be clear precisely what the equality implications are when he puts them in the balance, and he must recognise the desirability of achieving them, but ultimately it is for him to decide what weight they should be given in the light of all relevant factors.”

R (W) v Birmingham City Council on the PSED has been reported at [2012] LGR 1.

On s111(1) of LGA 1972, see R (National Secular Society and Bone) v Bideford Town Council, concerned with public prayers at the start of full meetings of a Parish Council. Ouseley J (para 13) identified what he regarded as the “narrow scope” of the issue before him: solely about whether prayers can be said as part of the formal business transacted by the Council at a meeting to which all Councillors are summonsed. Ouseley J (para 19) observed that Sch12 to LGA 1972, which governs Parish Council meetings, is “silent about prayers”, and (para 22) that there is “no specific statutory power to say prayers”. Ouseley J rejected the submission that no statutory authority was required.

Ouseley J went on to reject the submission that such authority was provided by s111(1) of LGA 1972. He said:-

“23. S111 requires the prior identification of the function to which the acts in issue are incidental. The purpose of the meetings is to transact the business of the Council, which business is made up of the various express and implied functions, duties and powers, which it possesses. The question therefore is whether saying prayers “is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to the discharge of any of their functions.” Although there is scope for a wide interpretation to be given to those words, the courts have set their face against an interpretation which would cover the incidental to the incidental, see for example R v Richmond LBC ex p McCarthy & Stone (Developments) Ltd [1992] 2 AC 48. The language also requires an objective standard or test: it is not a question of whether the Council reasonably considers that a particular act would facilitate or be conducive to or incidental to the discharge of its functions. “Calculated” does not mean “thought likely by the Councillors”, but requires an objective judgment of what is likely to facilitate the discharge of functions.

24. That said, I would accept that the reasoned view of elected Councillors in that respect would often be very persuasive. I do not doubt that the Councillors who voted for the continued saying of public prayers believe, or are prepared to accept, that the practice facilitates or is conducive or incidental to the transaction of business, and do so for reasons of belief and support for tradition … I have, however, come to the conclusion that s111 does not permit the public saying of prayers as part of he formal meeting of the Council, as an incident of the transaction of its business.”

“27. I do not see that it can be calculated to facilitate, or be conducive to or incidental to formal public Council deliberations as a whole, for the majority to include as part of their formal deliberations a ceremony from which some absent themselves or feel themselves to be excluded, perhaps under protest or in resentment. …”

Ouseley J also (para 76) went on to reject the Council’s submission that the requirements of a pluralist state meant that preventing prayers in a Council meeting breached ECHR Art 9, distinguishing Lautsi v Italy [2011] ECHR 2412.

Ouseley J’s conclusion (para 80) was as follows:-

“The saying of prayers as part of the formal meeting of a Council is not lawful under s111 of the Local Government Act 1972, and there is no statutory power permitting the practice to continue. If it were lawful, the manner in which the practice is carried out in the circumstances of Bideford does not infringe either Mr Bone’s human rights nor does it unlawfully discriminate indirectly against him on the grounds of his lack of religious belief.”

This decision was before Part 1 of the Localism Act 2011 was brought into force (the general power of competence).

Chapter 5A: Local Authorities and the Human Rights Act 1998

In City of London v Samede [2012] EWCA Civ 160 CA held that the occupiers of a camp next to St Paul’s Cathedral had ECHR Arts 10 & 11 rights in relation to the maintenance of the camp, but that did not mean that the camp should be allowed to continue. Determining the limits to the right of lawful assembly and protest on the highway is fact-sensitive. Relevant factors include the extent to which the continuation of the protest would breach domestic law, the importance of the precise location to the protesters, the duration of the protest, the degree to which the protesters occupied the land, and the extent of the actual interference the protest caused to the rights of others, including the property rights of the owners of the land, and the rights of any members of the public. It was appropriate to take into account the fact that protesters were expressing views on important issues and strongly believed in the views they were expressing. However, the level of public disruption caused by the protest justified removal of the camp, which was, and had been for three months, trespassing in St Paul’s Churchyard, substantially interfering with the public right of way and the rights of those who wished to worship in the Cathedral, in breach of planning control, and causing strain on public health facilities, and some damage to local businesses.

Chapter 7: Local Elections

On 24 February 2012 the Electoral Commission published Guidance on preventing and detecting electoral malpractice.

Chapter 8: Local Authority Employment Law

The Supreme Court decision in R (G) v Governors of X School on legal representation at disciplinary hearings is reported at [2011] LGR 849. Note the CLG February 2012 Guidance under Section 40 of the Localism Act 2011 on “Openness and Accountability in Local Pay”.

Chapter 10A: The New Ethical Framework

In Councillor Carole Gerada v Standards Committee of Scarborough Borough Council, Case No LGS/2011/0567, Decision on 3 February 2012, the FTT stated (para 7) “…absent from the papers submitted to the Tribunal is any copyof the Appellant’s Declaration of Office and agreement to abide by the relevant Code of Conduct. That is a key document because the Code of Conduct can only apply to a person who is acting in their official capacity as a Councillor; and (para 16) “The Tribunal recognises that an allegation of misappropriation of public funds could be seen as defamatory of those about whom it is made. The Tribunal does not, however consider that the making of such an allegation, of itself indicates a lack of respect toward those individuals. The Tribunal is of the view that the Code of Conduct does not have, and should not have the effect of preventing a Councillor from raising such concerns. Her comments are made on a matter of public interest. To interpret the Code of Conduct in a way which has the effect of precluding her from expressing such views is not necessary for the protection of the Councillors who believe themselves to be libelled – their protection is provided by the Law of Defamation. … The Tribunal interprets and applies the Code of Conduct in a way to give effect to the enshrined right to freedom of expression …”

In Councillor Ian Smith v Knowsley MBC, Case No LGS/2011/0562, Decision on 7 February 2012, the FTT reiterated that (para 6) the test for deciding whether or not there has been a breach of the Code, and any subjective considerations would, at best, serve only to mitigate the action taken as a result of the breach; Art 10 of the ECHR, the right to freedom of expression, provides, what is not an absolute right, but rather a right that has to weigh against the rights of the public as a whole to enjoy transparent and open government at both a local and national level, the lawful check that the Code of Conduct provides on Art 10; the restraints imposed by a Code of Conduct designed to uphold proper standards in public life are in principle likely to be within Art 10, but it is important that the restraints should not extend beyond what is necessary to maintain those standards; and the balancing exercise must take account of the principle of proportionality and the threshold for interference should be set at a standard which takes account of the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broad mindedness without which there is no democratic society; the approach in each case will be fact sensitive and must be carried out in a pragmatic and sensible way rather than on a conceptual basis; and, as regards sanction, the threshold for disqualification is a high one.

Chapter 11: EC Public Procurement Rules

On the distinction between selection criteria (including tenderers’ technical and professional capacity to perform the contract) and award criteria, see Judgment of the General Court on 8 December 2011 in Evropaiki Dynamiki v ,Proigmena, T-39/08, at paras 18-24. In particular, a criterion based on the tenderers’ experience concerns the tenderers’ ability to perform a contract and does not constitute an award criterion. This must be checked at the selection stage and cannot be taken into account again for the purpose of comparing the tenders.

In R (Greenwich Community Law Centre) v Greenwich LBC [2011] EWHC 3463 (Admin), the Administrative Court (Cranston J) dismissed a challenge by a leading law centre to the decision by Greenwich Council to withdraw its funding of around £200,000 per year. The Council’s decision followed a tender process for funding for legal services, which resulted in awards to four of five previously funded organisations but not to Greenwich CLC. The grounds of challenge included that the Council had adopted an irrational timetable for the tender process, had failed to carry out a risk assessment before withdrawing funding, had breached the statutory equality duty in s. 149 of the Equality Act 2010 and had unlawfully rejected two of the law centre’s funding bids for being a day out of time. The High Court made a number of findings which are of wider importance: first, the requirement in the National Compact to give three months notice of the withdrawal of funding did not apply where an existing funding award expired and the organisation had been warned that it might not be renewed; second, where a tender process for the award of third sector funding had been designed with the statutory equality duties in mind, and was intended to result in the award of funding to the organisations submitting the tenders best suited to the Council’s requirements, there was no obligation to conduct a further equalities assessment before making funding awards; and, third, principles of public procurement law did not require the Council to admit a late tender where late submission had been partly the fault of the Council (an incorrect date had been stated at one point in the tender documents) but overall it should have been clear to the law centre what the correct date was.

In JBW Ltd v Ministry of Justice (2012) EWCA Civ 8 CA upheld an order for summary judgment in a claim about a tender procedure for bailiff services. The issues were, first, the scope and application of the exclusion from the PCR of services concession contracts, and, second, the availability of a claim for breach of an implied contract created by an ITT and a response to it. As regards the services contract being a concession contract, MoJ relied on recent ECJ decisions in Wasser (C-206/08) and Stadler (C-274/09) to argue that it was sufficient to satisfy the definition of services concession that payment to the contractor came from third parties rather than the contracting authority, and that some risk was transferred from the contracting authority to the contractor, even if that risk was small having regard to the nature of the services to be provided. CA held that the contracts at issue lacked many of the typical features of a concession contract in that, for example, the third parties making payment were compulsory recipients of services rather than customers to whom the contractor was truly exploiting the relevant services; the contractor had no opportunity to exploit the services by developing the market/customer base; and MoJ retained close control over the way in which the services were provided. However, CA went on to hold that the contracts were services concessions excluded from the scope of the PCR on the basis that there was some transfer of risk from MoJ, there was no direct payment by MoJ, a service was provided to third parties, and it did not matter that they were unwilling recipients of the services. As regards implied contract, CA held that it would have been open to the parties expressly to contract to abide by obligations identical to those set out in the PCR and there was no reason why an implied contract ought not to cover the same ground; that there could be implied a private law contract to consider tenders submitted as required by the invitation to tender, and also to consider them in good faith; but that there could not be implied a contract containing the fuller set of obligations, mirroring the PCR for three reasons. First, those obligations were not necessary to give efficacy to the contract. Second, there could have been no common intention to imply these obligations as MoJ had always proceeded on the basis that the PCR did not apply, because the contracts were services concessions. Third, a power reserved by the MoJ (in standard terms) to alter the terms of the tender process as set out in the ITT was inconsistent with an implied contractual obligation to act with transparency. Whilst the ruling was concerned with contracts which fell outside the PCR, much of what the Court said is, at least arguably, applicable to tender processes concerning contracts which fall within the scope of the PCR.

 Chapter 13: Acquisition, Appropriation and Disposal of Land

R (Salford Estates Ltd) v Salford City Council, on LGA 1972 s123, is reported at [2011] LGR 982.

Chapter 14A: Local Government and Information

On whether public authorities are entitled as of right to rely on any exception/exemption under either FoIA 2000 or EIR 2004, see the decision, about EIR 2004, of the Court of Appeal in Birkett v DEFRA [2011] EWCA Civ 1606. Mr  Birkett argued that it was necessary to interpret Council Directive 2003/4/EC, on public access to environmental information, which implements the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, and in turn EIR 2004, as preventing a public authority from relying on a new or different exemption after the internal review stage; otherwise the complainant would not have an effective remedy because they would not know the reasons for the public authority’s refusal of their request for information. The Court of Appeal rejected Mr Birkett’s argument. As a result of this decision, the general rule is that public authorities can rely on any exception/ exemption at any time under EIR 2004 or FoIA.

FTT Decisions include Herbert v ICO and West Dorset DC, EA/2011/0157, on FoIA s14 and vexatious requests; King v ICO and Crawley BC, EA/2010/0126, on FoIA s44 and prohibition from disclosure; Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v ICO, EA/2011/0236, on FoIA s21 and accessibility of information; Cross v ICO and Havant BC, EA/2011/025, on the EIRs; Martyres v ICO and NHS Cambridgeshire, EA/2010/020, on s41 FoIA and confidentiality and on FoIA s21; Waites v ICO and NHS Wakefield District PCT, EA/2011/0166, on s36(2)(b) FoIA on free and frank provision of advice and exchange of views for purposes of deliberation; and Greenwood v ICO and Bolton MBC, EA/2011/0131 & 0137, on s40 FoIA and data protection, in which a request was made for disclosure of information revealing the declarations of interest which had been made by officials employed by Bolton MBC. The request was not limited either by reference to the nature of the interests in question or the seniority of the individual officers, although as it happened the relevant register of interests only recorded declarations from principal officers and above. The withheld information by its very nature comprised information about what individual officers got up to when they were not at work and, as such, was inherently private information. However, it was private information which plainly had a bearing on the discharge of the officers’ duties, hence its inclusion on the register of interests. The FTT concluded that: the names, departments, sections and job titles of all officers who had made entries on the register should be disclosed and that, in addition, in relation to chief officers, information revealing other professional commitments (e.g. consultancies) should be disclosed but that the remainder of the information should be withheld. In reaching these conclusions, the rejected arguments advanced by the Council that disclosure of any of the data would have a “chilling effect” on the system of declarations. In its view, officers would still be inclined to make declarations, the disclosure notwithstanding, particularly because of the “auditor effect”, namely “disclosure would enable members of the public to scrutinize the information and challenge any inaccuracies or omissions” which was “likely to add frankness in declaration” (para. 30). However, it accepted that withholding the bulk of the requested information was justified. This was particularly in view of the facts that disclosure of some of the information would be likely to cause substantial distress and would be extremely intrusive into the lives of officers and, further, disclosure would interfere with the private lives of third parties involved in the interest in question (paras. 33-43).

Chapter 18: Sources of Funds – Council Tax

Note the Local Government (Structural Changes) (Finance) (Amendment) Regulations 2012, SI 2012/20; and the Local Authorities (Conduct of Referendums) (Council Tax Increases) (England) Regulations 2012, SI 2012/ 444.

Chapter 19: Sources of Funds – Non-Domestic Rating

Note the Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2012, SI 2012/24; the Non-Domestic Rating (Electronic Communications) (England) Order 2012, SI 2012/25; and the Non-Domestic Rating (Small Business Rate Relief) Order 2012, SI 2012/148. Note the Local Government Finance Bill, which proposes amending existing legislation to change how non-domestic rates are distributed to local authorities by inserting a new schedule (7B) in the 1988 Local Government Finance Act, which sets out the parameters of how that new system will work, including: how total business rates should be split between central and local government; a duty on billing authorities to either pay a “tariff” to, or receive a “top up”from, Central Government; and for billing authorities to make payments to upper tier authorities: this will balance funding across local authorities in order to ensure they all start on a stable footing and enable upper tier authorities to be included within the new system; that the “levy” on disproportionate growth and “safety net” payments will be handled via a separate single account, and that decisions about how these will be set will be taken in regulations; allowing for authorities to retain in full the rates growth in designated Tax Increment Financing (TIF2) and Enterprise Zone areas; and that local authorities can choose to form “pools” and can then be treated as a single authority under the scheme; and which also requires authorities to establish a council tax reduction scheme by 31 January 2013.

Chapter 20: Capital Finance

Note the Local Authorities (Capital Finance and Accounting) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2012, SI 2012/265, whose main effects are to bring securitisation within the capital finance framework, to relax the rules on bond investments, and to clarify the definition of capital expenditure; and the CLG Commentary on the changes, which slightly amends guidance with respect to Minimum Revenue Provision in the context of Housing Revenue Account reforms.

Chapter 23: Housing

Housing Allocation

An allocation scheme which required a gypsy applying for a caravan site pitch to provide documentary evidence of an address for correspondence within the area was not irrational because it required connections to the local area. A gypsy or traveller could use a “care of” address: R (McDonagh) v Hackney London Borough Council (QBD, unreported, judgment of Kenneth Parker J of 15 February 2012).

The DCLG published a consultation document entitled “Allocation of Accommodation – Guidance for Local Housing Authorities in England” in January 2012 in preparation for the coming into force of sections 145-147 of the Localism Act 2011. The consultation period ends on 30 March 2012.

Housing Benefit

Housing benefit is usually only paid to cover communal fuel or cleaning costs where the individual is in sheltered accommodation. In Oxford City Council v Basey [2012] EWCA Civ 115 the Council had refused to pay the claimant housing benefit to cover these costs primarily because it interpreted sheltered accommodation as requiring a dedicated warden, which the claimant’s accommodation did not have. The Court of Appeal, agreeing with the Upper Tribunal, held that sheltered accommodation is a more flexible concept and may take many forms.

A landlord providing supported housing was not, on the facts, a “person affected” within the meaning of regulation 3 of the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2001 where it sought to bring appeals against housing benefit decisions in respect of its tenants.

Housing benefit is for the benefit of occupiers, not landlords, who could be authorised to act as agent where appropriate: Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council v Salisbury Independent Living Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 84.

The Social Security (Electronic Communications) (No.2) Order 2011 amends the Housing Benefit Regulations to allow the use of the direct.gov.uk website to notify the DWP of the death of a family member of a benefit recipient, from 23 January 2012.The Income-Related Benefits (Subsidy to Authorities) Amendment Order 2011 makes provision for the payment of subsidies to authorities administering housing benefit, reimbursing for both the benefit paid and towards administration costs. New rent limits are also specified, from 1 February 2012.

Gypsies

In Rooney v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2011] EWCA Civ 1556 the Court of Appeal confirmed that an application for planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 by gypsies on a caravan site engages a fundamentally different statutory scheme to that of the Housing Act 1996. As a result of the full merits review conducted by the planning inspector, which included proportionality, the court was not also required to investigate proportionality and the judgments of the Supreme Court in Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45; [2010] 3 WLR 1441 and Hounslow London Borough Council v Powell [2011] UKSC 8; [2011] 2

WLR 287 did not apply.

Human Rights

The European Court of Human Rights found a breach of the positive obligation on the part of the State to secure respect for the Article 8 rights of an individual where the State had failed to take any enforcement action in respect of a court judgment entitling the individual to recover a flat from which she had been wrongly evicted for non-repayment of a loan: Kontsevych v Ukraine (Application No. 9089/04) (judgment of 16 February 2012). The applicant was awarded damages of €8,000.

The making of a possession order in favour of the Moscow Housing Department over a property which was the applicant’s home, purchased in good faith, without consideration of the proportionality of the order was a breach of Article 8: Gladysheva v Russia (Application No. 7097/10) (judgment of 6 December 2011). The domestic court was ordered to restore the applicant’s title.

In a case evidencing considerable grumpiness, the applicant in Maempel v Malta (Application No. 24202/10) (judgment of 22 November 2011) complained that his Article 8 rights had been infringed by fireworks displays which were carried out by private individuals in fields close to his home for about two weeks per year. The European Court of Human Rights accepted that it was irrelevant that the infringing action was being done by private individuals, and accepted that fireworks displays could be described as noise pollution, but found no breach of Article 8 on the basis that there was no lasting damage (which was minor in any event) and the applicant had bought the house knowing of such activities.

Right to Buy

The DCLG published a consultation document entitled “Reinvigorating the Right to Buy and One for One Replacement” in December 2011 proposing an increase on the right to buy caps. The consultation period ended on 2 February 2012.

In Francis v London Borough of Southwark [2011] EWCA Civ 1418 the Court of Appeal confirmed that an alleged denial of an entitlement to exercise the right to buy could only be challenged by bringing proceedings in the County Court and not by an action for damages for breach of statutory duty.

Housing Revenue Account

The DCLG published, on 1 February 2012, its final determinations on the subsidies that local authorities will receive or pay as they exit the Housing Revenue Account system on 28 March 2012, as well as the new determinations for April 2012 onwards under the Localism Act 2011, and the introduction of a cap on the level of housing debt.

Legislation

Certain provisions of the Localism Act 2011 came into force on 15 January 2012. Local housing authorities are entitled to draft and consult on allocation schemes under sections 145-147, and are obliged to publish a tenancy strategy under sections 150-153. The Secretary of State may make regulations as to the applicable procedures regarding flexible tenancies (section 154) and on allocation schemes (sections 145-147). The Regulation Committee of the Homes and Communities Agency is established in preparation to take over the functions of the Tenant Services Authority (section 178).

Chapter 24: Local Authority Education Law

In R (Roberts) v Welsh Ministers and Cardiff City Council [2011] EWHC 3416 (Admin) it was held that a local authority is not precluded from adopting a policy which seeks to match school places with the likely demand from children within the catchment area of the school. The Judge held that the effect of s9 of EA 1996 and s86(1) of SSFA 1998 was that all local authorities have a duty to comply with parental preference unless compliance with the preference would prejudice the provision of efficient education or efficient use of resources within their administrative area. However, these did not preclude the adoption of a policy which sought to match school places with the likely demand from children within the catchment area of the school. Nor did the provisions make it unlawful for a local authority to have a policy which encourages children to attend the school in whose catchment area they reside. The Judge held that a local authority has an unqualified obligation to secure efficient primary education to meet the needs of the population of its area (under s13 of EA 1996) and it was open to them to conclude that an appropriate means of securing such efficient education for the whole of its area was to seek to achieve a reasonable match between the number of places at a particular school and the demands for such places from the catchment area of the school.

On barring decisions and legitimate expectations, see R (W) v Secretary of State for Education [2011] EWHC 3256, in which a teacher unsuccessfully challenged the SoS’s decision under s142 of EA 2002 to bar him from working with children on grounds including that it was an abuse of power because it was taken in breach of a substantive legitimate expectation. Singh J concluded that the Claimant did have a substantive legitimate expectation, based on a letter, that he would not have further action taken against him unless further misconduct came to the Department’s attention: the letter contained a representation to that effect which was clear, unambiguous and devoid of relevant qualification. However, the SoS had satisfied the burden of proving that there was an overriding reason in the public interest which entitled him to change his mind. The test was whether the SoS had a legitimate aim and had acted proportionately. The legitimate aim was the manifest and pressing public interest in protecting children, in particular from the risk of sexual abuse. As for proportionality, the Judge found that the decision in question was the SoS’s decision to reconsider the Claimant’s case (rather than the SoS’s subsequent decision to bar the Claimant from working with children). He concluded that the decision to reconsider was proportionate, given that the SoS had only reconsidered cases where it was thought that there might be a current risk to children; the SoS had sought to devise fair procedures which would be followed before a barring order was imposed, which included the right to make representations, the involvement of an expert panel chaired by an eminent and respected person from outside the department, the advice of the Lucy Faithfull Foundation which had expertise and experience in the field and the opportunity to have a face to face assessment; and there was a right of appeal to an independent judicial body against any subsequent decision to bar an individual from working with children. Singh J commented that in any event he would have dismissed the claim because the right to appeal to a tribunal against the barring decision was an adequate alternative remedy.

On the right to education conferred by Art 2 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR, and Art 14 read therewith, see R (Hurley) v SoS for BIS [2012] EWHC 201 (Admin).

In Macaulay v Newham LBC, 16 February 2012, the High Court refused the application for an injunction on behalf of teachers suspended from working at one of the Borough’s schools pending an investigation into allegations of falsification of attendance registers. The teachers argued that their suspension was a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence because there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations and no need for them to be suspended pending the investigation, which had already lasted 4 months. They sought interim relief pending trial compelling the authority to end their suspension and make reasonable endeavours to find alternative work for them. Lloyd Jones J refused the applications. In doing so, he recognised that what was sought by way of interim relief would effectively dispose of the proceedings and therefore that it was appropriate to consider the likelihood of the teachers obtaining relief at trial and not simply whether there was a ‘serious issue to be tried’ in accordance with standard American Cyanamid principles. He concluded that the suspensions on full pay were properly in accordance with the school’s disciplinary procedure, which provided for suspensions in cases of alleged gross misconduct. He further considered that the local authority had a sufficient basis for investigating the allegations, and that the authority was acting reasonably in withholding further evidence pending the completion of the investigation as to do otherwise might prejudice the outcome of the investigation. He accepted that the authority had acted reasonably in concluding that having the teachers at school during the investigation might prejudice the outcome of that investigation. He also accepted that although the investigation was taking some time, the period to date had been reasonable having regard to the nature of the investigation and the steps that had been taken. In the circumstances, he considered that there was not a serious issue to be tried, or a good arguable case and accordingly the teachers failed the first American Cyanamid hurdle. However, he observed that even if they did have a good arguable case, an injunction would have been refused because damages would not have been an adequate remedy for either party and, moreover, there had been a breakdown of trust and between the teachers and the school which meant that an injunction was inappropriate. 

Note the School Admissions (Admission Arrangements and Co-ordination of Admission Arrangements) (England) Regulations 2012, SI 2012/8, the School Admissions (Appeal Arrangements) (England) Regulations 2012, SI 2012/9, and the School Admissions (Infant Class Sizes) (England) Regulations 2012, SI2012/10. The first of these covers selection, priority for “looked after” children, consultation on admission arrangements, publication of admission arrangements, variation of determined admission arrangements, reference of objections to the Adjudicator (in the case of both maintained schools and academies), and co-ordination of admission arrangements, and mainly apply in relation to arrangements under which pupils are admitted to schools in England for the academic year 2013-2014 and subsequent years. The second prescribe the manner in which an Appeal Panel is to be constituted and the payment of allowances to Appeal Panel members and travel and subsistence expenses. The third revoke and replace the Education (Infant Class Sizes) (England) Regulations 1998 and the Education (Infant Class Sizes) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2006, adding new categories of excepted pupils and changing the circumstances in which pupils cease to be excepted. The limit imposed is a maximum of 30 pupils in an infant class at any time while an ordinary teaching session is conducted by a single school teacher (or, where the session is conducted by more than one school teacher, a maximum of 30 pupils for every teacher). This limit applies in relation to the 2013-2014 school year and subsequent years for any maintained school which contains an infant class. Excepted pupils are children for whom suitable education cannot be provided in an infant class at that school without relevant measures (as defined) having to be taken and who are within one of nine specified categories.

Note the Education (School Teachers’ Appraisal) (England) Regulations 2012, SI 2012/115, which apply to any teacher employed for one school term or more, but not to any teacher whilst the teacher is undergoing an induction period, or any teacher whilst that teacher is the subject of capability procedures, and which require governing bodies and local authorities to have and make available a written document setting out the appraisal process; establish the appraisal period; require head teachers, governing bodies and local authorities to set objectives for teachers and inform each teacher of the standards against which that teacher’s performance is to be assessed; require the annual appraisal of the performance of teachers, an assessment of the teacher’s professional development needs and, where relevant, a recommendation on the teacher’s pay; and require the appointment of external advisers in respect of head teachers. The combined effect of the Regulations and the Model Policy, both of which come into force on 1 September 2012, is to make a number of changes to the way in which teachers are appraised and are monitored prior to removal. Most of the prescription in the current regulations will disappear, including the three hour limit on classroom observation. After September 2012, governing bodies and local authorities will be free to make their own decisions about the amount of observation that is appropriate for their teachers. They will also be free to decide many other matters on which they currently have no flexibility. The Model Policy removes an informal capability process and the suggested length of the monitoring and review period following a first warning has been reduced in length from 20 weeks to between 4-10 weeks. The length of the review period must be reasonable in the circumstances of each case, and must provide sufficient time for improvement to take place.

Note the Special Educational Needs (Direct Payment) (Pilot Schemes) Order 2012, SI 2012/206, which came into force on 30 January 2012. S532A of EA 1996 allows local authorities to make a payment to a person with a SEN statement or learning difficulty assessment for the purpose of securing (a) special educational provision specified in a SEN statement, (b) provision identified in a learning difficulty assessment as required to meet education and training needs, and/or (c) transport or anything else that may be subject to arrangements in s508B(1) (school children), s508F(1) (adult learners) or s509AA(7)(b) (sixth formers). Local authorities are only permitted to make such a payment in accordance with a pilot scheme made under s532B. S532B enables the SoS to make pilot schemes by order. Under the above Order the pilot scheme is for a period of two years, and applies to the 36 local authorities listed in Schedule 2. This is a significant change to how SEN provision is provided. The pilot scheme applies to a range of local authorities and those authorities are required to follow the scheme for all people with SEN statements or learning difficulty assessments.

Note the School Admissions Code and School Admission Appeals Code (Appointed Day) Order 2012, SI 2012/216, providing that the School Admissions Code and the School Admissions Appeal Code came into force on 1 February 2012.

Note the School Finance (England) Regulations 2012, SI 2012/335, which define the local authority education budgets (the non-schools education budget, the schools budget, the central expenditure and the individual schools budget) and set out how local authorities are to allocate funding from the individual schools budget to maintained schools and private, voluntary and independent providers of free early years provision (relevant early years providers) through a locally determined formula. These apply for the financial year 2012-2013 and replace previous versions of the regulations. There are three significant changes from the regime applicable under the 2011 Regulations: (1) Where a pupil in respect of whom a pupil premium is payable is permanently excluded from one school and admitted to another school, provision is made for the budget shares of both schools to be adjusted by an amount which equates to the appropriate portion of that premium; (2) Provision is made to allow for the remission of boarding fees for pupils registered at Academies to be charged to the schools budget; and (3) There are changes to the calculation of the minimum funding guarantee and to the circumstances in which the guarantee may be varied or disapplied.

Note the Education (School Day and School Year) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2012, SI 2012/248 (W.41); the Education (Wales) Measure 2009 (Commencement No 3 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2012, SI 2012/320 (W.51); and the Education (Wales) Measure 2009 (Pilot) Regulations 2012, SI 2012/321 (W.52).

Chapter 25: Social Services

R (JG) v Lancashire County Council, on raising a FACS eligibility threshold and revising a social care services charging policy, is reported at [2011] LGR 909. R (O) v Hammersmith & Fulham LBC, on the appropriate placement for a child with autistic spectrum disorder, is reported at [2011] LGR 931, R (Palmer) v HM Coroner for Worcestershire, on the extent of a local authority’s duty to safeguard the right to life of vulnerable individuals who are in receipt of care from them, is reported at [2011] LGR 952.

On the fee to be paid by a local authority for residential care, see R (Mavalon Care Ltd) v Pembrokeshire County Council [2011] EWHC 3371 (Admin).

Note the Carers Strategies (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2012, SI 2012/282 (W.46).

Note also that a Welsh Government Consultation seeks views by 30 May 2012 on whether the existing social services complaints processes should be amended to meet the needs of service users

Chapter 26: Environmental Law

Note the Contaminated Land (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2012, SI 2012/283 (W.47).

On 23 February 2012 DEFRA and the Welsh Government instituted a Consultation (for response by 12 April 2012) on proposed amendments to the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011. The 2011 Regulations transpose the revised Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC. A Judicial Review has challenged the transposition of the requirements of the Directive on the separate collection of recycling. DEFRA and the Welsh Government recognise that as drafted the Regulations do not accurately reflect these requirements and that they should be amended. The Court has granted a six-month stay of the Judicial Review proceedings to do this, until June 2012. The proposed amendment does not represent any change in the existing policy position. Nor has there been any change in EU law. The Consultation is only on whether the drafting changes serve to better transpose the Directive. The subject matter is the separate collection of recycling.

The Judicial Review is challenging the inclusion of co-mingled collection as a form of separate collection as being contrary to the Directive’s aims and obligations to promote high quality recycling, and a failure correctly to transpose the Directive. It is alleged that setting out that co-mingled collection is a form of separate collection is contrary to the Directive’s aims and obligations to achieve separate collection of four waste streams by 2015, and that separate, not co-mingled collection is desirable for reasons including that it achieves a higher standard of recyclate material.

Chapter 27: Highways

In Cusack v Harrow LBC [2011] EWCA Civ 1514 CA held that the Council was entitled under s66 HA 1980 (rather than s80) to erect barriers, in order to protect pedestrians, to prevent a property owner from driving over the footway in order to gain access to his forecourt, subject to paying compensation.

 

Newer Entries »