In joined cases (2022) EWCA Civ 601, R (Elkundi) v Birmingham City Council and R (Imam) v Croydon LBC the principal issue in the Birmingham case was the nature of the duty owed by local authorities (LHAs to homeless persons, under Section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1966 (the 1966 Act), which provides that a LHA shall secure that accommodation is available for the applicant; and the sole issue in the second case concerned the circumstances in which a Court may, in the exercise of its discretion refuse a mandatory order to enforce a duty owed under Section 193(2).
Homelessness – R (Elkundi) v Birmingham City Council and R (Imam) v Croydon LBC
May 9th, 2022 by James Goudie KC in Housing
Judicial Review of Policies
May 4th, 2022 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and LitigationR (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 »
Irrationality
April 28th, 2022 by James Goudie KC in Human Rights and Public Sector Equality DutyIn Gardner v SoS for Health and Social Care (2022) EWHC 967 (Admin) a Divisional Court dismisses claims under the Human Rights Act, but upholds common claims in respect of documents that set out an “irrational” policy in “failing” to advise that where a Covid asymptomatic patient was admitted to a Care Home, he or she should, as far as practicable, be kept apart from other residents for 14 days. At para 139 the Court stated that it cannot be said, as a general proposition, that the adjudication of past alleged breaches of duty which have now been repeated is always academic or a hypothetical exercise in the context of judicial review.
Voter Identification
April 27th, 2022 by James Goudie KC in Elections and BylawsThe appeal in R (Coughlan) v Minister for the Cabinet Office (2022) UKSC 11 concerned a challenge brought by Mr Coughlan to orders made by the Minister for the Cabinet Office in respect of Braintree District Council and nine other local authorities (“the Pilot Orders”). These Pilot Orders authorised schemes to temporarily change the rules set out in secondary legislation governing local elections. These schemes, which were implemented in ten local authority areas in respect of the local government elections in May 2019, each introduced a new requirement for some form of voter identification for those local elections.
Subsidy Control / State Aid
April 21st, 2022 by James Goudie KC in Capital Finance and CompaniesIN VOLOTEA v COMMISSION, Joined Cases C-331/20P and C-343/20P, Advocate General Capeta addresses, at paras 62-114 inclusive, the Market Economy Operator Principle ( the MEO ). The applicability of the MEO test is governed by the NATURE of the activities, that is by whether the public authority intervention is through an activity comparable to what could be envisaged in the market. The test is applicable to all situations in activities are performed by the authority comparable to market activities. These include when the authority acts in a way comparable to a market operator. This is decided by an objective enquiry into HOW the authority engages with undertakings on a given market, irrespective of the form and reasons for that engagement.
Privacy
April 19th, 2022 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and LitigationIn 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”.
Constitutional Principles
April 14th, 2022 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and LitigationIn Somerset County Council v NHS Somerset (2022) EWFC 31 the President of the Family Division reiterates two fundamental principles of constitutional law : –
Heritage Assets
April 12th, 2022 by James Goudie KC in Planning and EnvironmentalLondon Parks & Gardens Trust v Minister of State (2022) EWHC 829 (Admin) concerns whether there will be “substantial harm” to heritage assets, and consideration of the impact of a proposed development on relevant heritage assets. The “high test” is whether potential harm will be: “substantial”, rather than “less than substantial” for the purposes of the NPPF, that is a serious degree of harm to the asset’s significance. The significance of the historic asset does not have to be “drained away”. The test is “substantial harm”, not any gloss, such as “draining away”.
Exclusion Clauses
April 6th, 2022 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and ContractsIn Soteria v IBM (2022) EWCA Civ 440 the Court of Appeal holds that an exclusion clause, in a contract of sale, which purported to exclude liability, for “indirect or consequential losses, or for loss of profit, revenue or savings”, did NOT preclude the buyer from recovering expenditure that it had incurred in anticipation of the contract, but which was wasted, as a result of the supplier’s repudiation.
PSED & ETOs
April 5th, 2022 by James Goudie KC in Human Rights and Public Sector Equality DutyIn R (SHEAKH) v LAMBETH LBC (2022) EWCA Civ 457 a challenge to the authority’s discharge of the PSED failed in relation to 3 Experimental Traffic Orders relating to Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. At para 10 the. Court of Appeal emphasized 5 points: (1) Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 does not require a substantive result; (2) Nor does it prescribe a particular procedure; (3) It does however imply a duty of reasonable enquiry; and (4) It requires a decision-maker to understand the obvious equality impacts of a decision before adopting a policy; (5) Courts should not engage in unduly legalistic investigation of the way in which an authority has assessed the impact of the decision on the equality needs. See also paras 11-18 inc for an update on the BRACKING Principles.