Section 29(6) of the Equality Act 2010 on exercise of a public function does not provide a remedy equivalent to Section 39(2) of that Act on discrimination against employee. So held in Eckland v Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset (2021) EWCA Civ 1961, because the former claim has to be brought in the County Court, whereas the latter can be pursued in an Employment Tribunal. There are a number of material differences between the two jurisdictions, including that it is the ET which has the appropriate expertise for determining discrimination disputes in the employment field, and both the costs regime and the available remedies are different.

The 30 day limitation for procurement claims is a short one, but the Courts have repeatedly emphasised that it should be observed. In Access for Living Limited v Lewisham LBC (2021) EWHC 3498 ( TCC ) Jefford J says : –

Read more »

Whether or not to grant an injunction in a public law case involves the exercise of a discretion which takes all relevant matters into account. These include the strength of the case advanced by the party seeking relief. That however, is not the application of a rigid test. Other important factors to be taken into account are (1) the particular decision under challenge, (2) the interests of the public in general that are involved, and (3) the broader legal framework. See para 52 in R ( S & S ) v HMRC (2021) EWHC 3174 ( Admin ).

The appeal in R ( Majera) v SSHD (2021) UKSC 46 raised a question of constitutional importance: whether it is possible to act lawfully in a manner which is inconsistent with an Order of a Judge which is defective, without first applying for, and obtaining, the variation or setting aside of that Order. The answer, reversing the Court of Appeal, is: No.

In Pantellerisco v SoS for Work & Pensions (2021) EWCA Civ 1454 Underhill LJ for the Court of Appeal says, at para 56, that the “degree of intensity” with which the Court will review the reasonableness of a public law act or decision “ varies “according to the “nature” of the decision in question, and, at para 57, that in the context of governmental decisions in the field of “social and economic policy” the administrative law test of unreasonableness is generally applied with “considerable care and caution.” The approach of the Courts is in general to accord a “high level of respect” to the judgment of public authorities in that field. This respects the “separation of powers” between the judiciary and the elected branches of government.

In Ashford Borough Council v Wilson (2021) EWHC 2542 (QB) the Borough Council and its Chief Executive sought on their own behalf and on behalf of the current and former officers, employees, councillors and agents of the Council, a final anti-harassment injunction against the Defendant, a large-scale landlord in Kent, pursuant to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 [“the 1997 Act”]. The Claimants’ complaints related, principally, to letters and emails sent by the Defendant.

Read more »

The central issue in Elgamal v Westminster City Council (2021) EWHC 2510 (Admin) was whether the Claimant had on the balance of probabilities been fundamentally dishonest in relation to his personal injury claim against the Council and accordingly the provisions of Section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 were applicable. Jacobs J. said:-

Read more »

A Court has power to strike out proceedings as an abuse of process in circumstances where the issues sought to be raised might have been dealt with in earlier proceedings: the Henderson v Henderson principle. In the Matter of S ( Children) (2021) EWCA Civ 1223 the Court of Appeal rules that this principle has no application in children’s proceedings.

The most common defences to restitution claims are limitation and change of position. How far does a defendant have to go in proving the irreversibility of the unjust enrichment for the purposes of the change of position defence? Not so far as to pursue litigation in mitigation of loss if there is “little chance of recovery”. See paragraph 76 in Atkinson v Varma (2021) EWHC 2027 (Ch).

In assessing a FoIA request the in-built “significant weight” to be afforded to LPP is something to be considered in any event. It is not necessary for the party claiming LPP to demonstrate any specific prejudice or harm from the specific disclosure of the documents in question, or to establish either that Council officials would be inhibited from seeking advice if disclosure were made in the case or that advisers would be less likely to provide frank advice. Significant weight needs to be given to the public interest in maintaining LPP.  This does not mean that the LPP exemption is  absolute. All will depend on the public interest factors weighed in the balance. Disclosure is always a possibility which depends on public interest factors which are not in the control of decision-makers and their advisers, but an authority will most often be entitled to obtain legal advice on an issue and to rely on LPP to withhold it even when a request is made under FoIA. That is because of the built-in public interest in maintaining LPP. See FTT at paragraphs 31-35 inclusive in Murray-Smith v Information Commissioner, EA/2021/0039V, 4 August 2021.