R ( NAHT and others ) v OFSTED ( 2025 ) EWHC 2891 ( Admin) is concerned with whether OFSTEDfailed to conduct a legally sufficient Consultation in relation to a renewed inspection framework and its alleged serious negative effects. Saini J sets out the relevant legal principles at para 72. At para 73 he said in relation to the 1^st (formative stage ) and 4^th (conscientious consideration ) Gunning requirements for a fair and open-minded consultation :-

“ As helpfully explaned in JUDICIAL REVIEW : SUPPERSTONE< GOUDIE & WALKER ( 7^th edn, 2024 ) at 10.35, the first and fourth GUNNING requirements are interrelated. In practical terms, there must be some specific proposal on which to consult, otherwise there would be no focus for the representations from the consultees. This presupposes that the public body will have formed at least a tentative view as to what it wants to do. Accordingly a public body may properly consult upon a PREFERRED OPTION. But there is a red line : it must not have closed its mind to any changes, otherwise there could be no scope genuinely to consider the representations made.”

This entry was posted on Friday, November 7th, 2025 at 10:34 am and is filed under Decision making and Contracts. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.