In R (Challis) v SoS for Health and Social Care (2022) EWHC 2269 (Admin) Steyn J at para 73 addresses the legal principles in circumstances where the sole ground of judicial review is irrationality. It is for the Court to determine whether, viewed objectively, the decision is outside the range of reasonable decisions open to the decision-maker. Unequal treatment is not a distinct ground of review. In assessing an allegation of unequal treatment the question is whether irrational distinctions have been drawn between different groups. Consistency is a generally desirable objective. It is not an absolute rule.

The Appeal in HXA v Surrey County Council (2022 ) EWCA Civ 1196 involves consideration of the circumstances in which a local authority, and/or the social workers for whom it is vicariously liable, owe a duty of care toa child to whom the local authority is providing child protection services. The Court of Appeal’s Conclusions are set out from paragraph 90 to 110.. A duty of care cannot arise simply as a result of the authority’s general duties, but may arise as a result of its specific exercise of its specific duties to a child if, on a case by case basis and the specific facts of the case, the circumstances amount to an assumption of responsibility for the child, and the circumstances in which an authority may assume responsibility for a child are not confined to cases where it acquires parental responsibility under a care order.

In PRIMAVERA ASSOCIATES LTD V HERTSMERE BOROUGH COUNCIL (2022) EWHC 1240 (Ch) the defendant local planning authority applied, with partial success, to strike out a witness statement made on behalf of the claimant property development company. The claimant alleged that the Council had been negligent in its planning process. Written statements are to contain evidence that the maker would be allowed to give orally. They are not to provide commentary on documents or engage in argument or include opinion. They must state how well the witness personally recalls the matter addressed and provide details of documents used to refresh memory in respect of matters of fact. They can provide relevant background information known to the witness.

Part 1 of the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 relates to Judicial Review. It consists of two Sections.  Section 1 relates to quashing orders.  Section 2 excludes review of Upper Tribunal permission to appeal decisions.  Section 1(1) provides that a quashing order may include provision (a) for the quashing not to take effect until a date specified in the order, or (b) removing or limiting any retrospective effect of the quashing.  In deciding whether to exercise a power in subsection (1) the Court must have regard to six specified matters.

R (All the Citizens) v SoS (2022) EWHC 960 (Admin), a Divisional Court is concerned with whether there is a legal duty, enforceable by judicial review, to create and maintain records so that they are available for posterity, and whether policies are enforceable as a matter of public law.

At para 17, the Court addressed a procedural question. They said, at para 17 (emphasis added):-

“It should not be left to parties (or, for that matter, the court) to have to infer, from omissions in skeleton arguments, what grounds of claim have been abandoned. If a party no longer pursues a ground of claim, that ought to be made clear to the court and to the other parties. To do otherwise is inconsistent with the obligations to:

(1)     help the court to further the overriding objective (which includes identifying the issues at an early stage): see CPR 1.3 and 1.4(2)(b); Read more »

In Underwood v Bounty (2022) EWHC 888 ( QB ) claims for breach of the Data Protection Act Principles and for privacy/misuse of private information failed. Nicklin J reiterated at para 50 in relation to the tort of misuse of private information that liability is determined using a 2 stage test: (1) whether the claimant has “a reasonable expectation” of privacy in the relevant information; and, if so (2) whether that is outweighed by “countervailing interests”.

In Somerset County Council v NHS Somerset (2022) EWFC 31 the President of the Family Division reiterates two fundamental principles of constitutional law : –

Read more »

See R (Good Law Project) v SoS (2022) EWCA Civ 355 at para 39 on the need for promptness and speed in judicial review claims generally, and procurement challenges in particular, at para 41 on the importance of valid service of claim forms, and at paras 78-80 inclusive applications for extension of time. At para 57 the Court of Appeal says that, provided the Defendant has done nothing to put obstacles in the Claimant’s way, a potential Defendant is under no obligation to give positive assistance to the Claimant to serve. The potential Defendant can sit back and await developments. There is no duty on the Defendant to warn a Claimant that valid service of a claim form has not been effected.

In Mullaley v Martlet Homes Ltd (2022) EWCA Civ 32 a claimant was permitted to amend its claim out of time under CPR r.17.4 so as to include an allegation that the defendant’s use of combustible cladding material for tower block refurbishment breached a design and build contract. In considering whether such a new cause of action arose from “the same facts or substantially the same facts” as those which the defendant had put in issue in its defence, some limited flexibility is allowed for a claimant to rely on new facts or matters beyond those pleaded in the defence in order to allow for expansion, elaboration or

Read more »

In Barking & Dagenham LBC v Persons Unknown (2022) EWCA Civ 13 the Court of Appeal rules that the Courts can grant in respect of unauthorised encampments a final injunction that prevent  persons that are unknown and unidentified at the date of the Order, newcomers, from occupying and trespassing on local authority land.