R (Atta Ul Haq) v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (2019) EWHC 70 (Admin) was a claim for judicial review in which the Claimant challenged the lawfulness of a policy adopted by the Defendant, Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council, entitled ‘Rules and Regulations in respect of Cemeteries and Crematoria’ (the “Cemetery Policy”), specifically those provisions which preclude individuals from erecting raised edging around the grave of a deceased person. The Claimant is a practising Barelvi Muslim. His father was a prominent member of the community and an Imam, passed away on 21 June 2015 and was buried on the following day at Streetly Cemetery. It is administered by the Defendant local authority. The Defendant had refused to give the Claimant permission for the erection of a four-inch raised marble edging around his father’s grave. The Claimant’s request arises from his religious belief that the grave is sacrosanct and stepping on the grave is an offensive, religiously proscribed act that must be prevented. Read more »
Religious Rights
January 24th, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Human Rights and Public Sector Equality Duty
“Meat”/Transparency/Equal Treatment
January 23rd, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and ContractsCase T-117/17 Proximus v Council of the European Union, concerns the negotiated procedure for a public services framework contract, what constitutes the most economically advantageous tender (“MEAT”), and the lawfulness of a tender evaluation method, in terms of the general principles of transparency, non-discrimination and equal treatment. The General Court said:- Read more »
Cuckooing
January 22nd, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Human Rights and Public Sector Equality DutyAn individual is vulnerable to exploitation because of physical and/or mental disability. Their flat has been taken over by others to deal drugs. This is a situation known as “cuckooing”. The individual’s local authority or housing association landlord seeks a possession order, on the ground of anti-social behaviour, involving drug use, in the flat, which causes distress to fellow residents, over an extended period of time. This situation has not been considered by the Courts in the context
Read more »
Duty of Equal Treatment
January 22nd, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and ContractsRegulation 18 of the Public Contracts Regulations sets out the EU principles of procurement. These include that contracting authorities “shall treat economic operators equally and without discrimination”. Comparable situations must not be treated differently. Different situations must not be treated in the same way, unless such treatment is objectively justified. The question whether or not there has been a breach of the principle is to be considered in context, and having regard
General Permitted Development Order (“GDPO”)
January 22nd, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Planning and EnvironmentalIs a nursery, attended by young children, a “school”, within the meaning of Class M of the GPDO? That was the question of construction posed in Bright Horizons v SoS for CLG and Watford Borough Council (2019) EWHC 14 (Admin). The Court held that there was no good reason for giving to the word “school” in the GPDO anything other than its ordinary meaning, which does not include a nursery.
Whether Rates Proposal Invalidated by Omission
January 9th, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Council Tax and RatesIn Alam v Valuation Officer (2018) UKUT 266 (LC) Mr Alam is the proprietor of the restaurant. He took a lease of a Property. His agents submitted a proposal to reduce the rateable value of the Property. In their proposal they stated correctly that Mr Alam was the occupier of the Property but also stated that the Property was “owner/occupied”. The proposal was completed in that way because of a misunderstanding between Mr Alam and his agents. As a result, the agents did not include any information in response to the question “if not owner/occupied, is a rent or licence fee paid?” and, in particular, did not state the rent payable, the date it had first become payable and the date of the next rent review. All of this was information required by Regulation 6(3) of the Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009 (“the 2009 Regulations”). The issue in Mr Alam’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) concerned the consequence of the mis-statement of the capacity in which Mr Alam occupied the Property and the omission of any information about the rent payable. The Valuation Tribunal for England (“VTE”) found that the proposal was invalid, explaining: Read more »
Material change in circumstances
December 20th, 2018 by James Goudie KC in Council Tax and RatesIn Merlin Entertainments Group Ltd v VO (2018) UKUT 406 (LC) the Upper Tribunal was concerned with whether there had been a material change of circumstances under paragraph 2(7)(d) of Schedule 6 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988. It was held that there had not been such a change. The change (a fall in visitor numbers at Alton Towers following a fatal crash) was not a matter which was “physically manifest” in the locality of the hereditament on the relevant day.
Paragraph 2(7) enacts the physical state and user limbs of the reality principle, in relation to both the hereditament and its locality. Regulation 2(7) sets out the factors to which the reality principle applies. They include, (d), matters affecting the physical state of the locality in which the hereditament is situated or which, though not affecting the physical state of the locality, are nonetheless “physically manifest” there. One of the issues which arose was whether a purely economic matter can fall within paragraph 2(7)(d). Read more »
Community infrastructure levy
December 20th, 2018 by James Goudie KC in Planning and EnvironmentalR (Giordano Ltd) v Camden LBC (2018) EWHC 3417 (Admin) was an application for judicial review of a notice of liability to pay a Community Infrastructure Levy (“CIL”) in respect of a proposed development. The issue was whether the Claimant was liable to the Council for CIL, following a grant of planning permission for the development by the Council as local planning authority. The Council had decided that the Claimant was not eligible for a deduction from the “chargeable amount” under the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, as amended (“the CIL Regulations”). This was because the Claimant did not meet the conditions in Regulation 40(7) of the CIL Regulations. Read more »