Local Government Law

Search for:
Subscribe

Get an email when we publish a new post on this blog. We’ll never share your email and you can unsubscribe any time. Our use of your details is explained in our privacy policy.

"*" indicates required fields

Email*

First name*
Last name*

Δ
Headings
- Best Value (13)
- Capital Finance and Companies (56)
- Council Tax and Rates (77)
- Decision making and Contracts (276)
- Elections and Bylaws (33)
- Environment, Highways and Leisure (120)
- General (17)
- Housing (151)
- Human Rights and Public Sector Equality Duty (108)
- Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation (224)
- Land, Goods and Services (74)
- Local Authority Powers (75)
- Non Judicial Control (21)
- Planning and Environmental (162)
- Social Care (79)
- Standards (24)
Disclaimer

This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Appeal out of time

March 27th, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Housing

In Tower Hamlets London Borough Council v Abdullah Al Ahmed (2019) EWHC 749 (QB) Dove J considered whether an appeal to the County Court in a homelessness case should be treated as out of time under Section 204 of the Housing Act 1996. Section 204(2A)(b) provides that the Court may give permission for an appeal to be brought after the prescribed 21 day period, but only if the Court is satisfied that there is “good reason”. Dove J said:-

“11. A number of important points need to be taken into account when approaching the exercise of discretion under section 204(2A) (b) and considering whether in a case where permission to appeal is sought after the 21 day time limit there is “good reason” for the failure to bring the claim in time. The first point is that the merits of the substance of the appeal are no part of the consideration of this question. … Read more »

Officer reports to committee

March 27th, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and Contracts

In Thompson v Conwy County Borough Council (2019) EWHC 746 (Admin) Dove J addressed at paragraphs 20-22 inclusive the law relating to the discretion whether or not to grant planning permission, and at paragraph 24 the legal principles governing an allegation that members have been misled by the advice which they have received from their officers. In that latter connection Dove J said:-

“Firstly, the case-law has made clear that it is a reasonable inference where members follow the recommendation of their officers that they can be taken to have adopted the reasoning and explanation provided in the Committee report and any other presentation to them by officers. When approaching the examination of the Committee report the courts have made clear that criticisms will not merit consideration unless the overall effect of the report has been to significantly mislead the Committee about the material considerations bearing on their decision. Reports should also be approached on the basis that they are being read by a knowledgeable readership in the form of a Planning Committee of trained council members, with a substantial local background knowledge of the area which they represent and a broad familiarity with local development plan policies. Thus officer reports should be read as a whole and in a common sense manner, bearing in mind they are addressed to an informed readership rather than construed as a statute or other similar legal instrument, and that they were intended to be a practical decision-taking tool.”

Intentional Homelessness

March 25th, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Housing

In Godson v Enfield LBC [2019] EWCA Civ 486 Lewison LJ identified the principal intentional homelessness issues on the appeal under the Housing Act 1996, as amended by the Localism Act 2011, as being:-

Fraud

March 21st, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation

In Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd (2019) UKSC 13 a seven Justice Supreme Court has unanimously held, allowing the appeal from the Court of Appeal, that a person who applies to set aside an earlier judgment based on fraud does not have to demonstrate that evidence of fraud could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence before the earlier trial.

Voter ID pilots for local elections

March 21st, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Elections and Bylaws

R (Coughlan) v Minister for the Cabinet Office, Braintree District Council Interested Party (2019) EWHC 641 (Admin) concerns a decision to introduce pilot schemes to require voters to present either one form of photo ID or up to two forms of non-photo ID. Whether the decision was lawful turns on the proper interpretation of Section 10 in Part II of the Representation of the People Act 2000 (“the 2000 Act”). This empowers Orders in respect of approved pilot schemes for voting in local government elections. In essence, the central question is whether the voter ID pilots are schemes within the meaning and scope of Section 10(2)(a), that is whether they are schemes for testing “how voting … is to take place”. Supperstone J rejected the challenge. He was satisfied (paragraph 75) that the Section 10(1) power was intended to allow proposed changes to local government electoral procedures from time to time existing to be tested. He continued that he agreed with the following points:-

Private Sector Enforcement Policy

March 19th, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Housing

Humber Landlords Association v Hull City Council (2019) EWHC 332 (Admin) was an unsuccessful judicial review challenge to the Council’s decision by its Cabinet to approve a new private sector housing enforcement policy (“the Policy”). By the Policy, the Council has sought to set out how it intends to carry out its obligations under Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004 (“the 2004 Act”); in particular, how it intends to enforce housing standards and to address hazardous housing conditions. Part 1 of the 2004 Act provides, by Section 1(1):

Budget Decision-Making

March 19th, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and Contracts

R (Hollow) v Surrey County Council (2019) EWHC 618 (Admin) is now the leading case on challenges to local authority budgets. The challenge failed on all grounds. It was particularly focussed on savings in relation to special educational needs and disabilities (“SSEND”).
Read more »

Legitimate Expectation

March 19th, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and Contracts

In R (Alliance of Turkish Businesspeople Ltd) v SSHD (2019) EWHC 603 (Admin) issues were raised about a substantive legitimate expectation derived from published guidance and a change of policy by SSHD. The claim for judicial review was dismissed. The Judge did find both that there was a “clear and unambiguous”

Employment Contracts

March 19th, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and Contracts

In North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust v Dr Andrew Gregg (2019) EWCA Civ 387 it was held that the employer was not entitled to withhold pay during a period of suspension not imposed by way of sanction. Coulson LJ said, at paragraphs 69 and 71, that, in a situation where the contract does not address the issue of pay deduction during suspension, the default position should be that, in the ordinary case, where allegations are disputed, suspension should not attract the deduction of pay.

Consultation

March 13th, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and Contracts

In Stephenson v SoS for MHCLG (2019) EWHC 519 (Admin) Dove J, from paragraph 35 to paragraph 62, applied familiar principles as to the requirements to be satisfied by a lawful consultation exercise, the parameters which need to be observed in order to ensure that the consultation is one which is lawful. He found the

Subscribe

Headings

Disclaimer