In Aldemir v Cornwall Council (2019) EWHC 2407 (Admin) Swift J held that Magistrates acting pursuant to their appeal jurisdiction under Section 181(2) of the Licensing Act 2003 had the power to make a non-party costs order in favour of the licensing authority whose decision was appealed. However, in this case the procedure followed when the costs orders were made was found to be flawed. Swift J said:-
Non-Party Costs Order
September 19th, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation
Injunctions
September 19th, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and LitigationIn Redcar & Cleveland BC v PR (2019) EWHC 2305 (Fam) Cobb J considered the circumstances in which interim injunctions are granted to local authorities under the Court’s inherent common law jurisdiction to protect vulnerable adults. That jurisdiction is not confined to cases where a vulnerable adult is disabled by mental incapacity from making his or her own decision about the matter in hand, and cases where an adult, although not mentally incapacitated, is unable to communicate his decision. The jurisdiction extends to a wider class of vulnerable adults, where there is evidence of vulnerability and a need to protect the vulnerable person, and statutory processes would not offer the level of protection needed. Nor is the jurisdiction excluded if the order amounts to a deprivation of liberty, at any rate if any such deprivation does not exceed six weeks. Cobb J said (paragraph 46):-
Environmental Impact Assessment
August 28th, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Planning and EnvironmentalShould two developments have been assessed as a single “ project” for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011? That was the issue in R (WINGFIELD) v CANTERBURY CITY COUNCIL (2019) EWHC 1975 (Admin). Lang J held that this is a matter of judgment for the competent authority, subject to challenge only on public grounds.
She listed the relevant factors. They include common ownership, simultaneous determination and functional interdependence on the one hand; and ability to stand alone on the other hand.
ECHR Article A1P1
August 27th, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Human Rights and Public Sector Equality DutyWhen do contractual rights and expectations amount to A1P1 possessions? When does goodwill qualify for A1P1 Protection? These were the linked substantive issues in SOLARIA ENERGY UK v DBEIS (2019) EWHC 2188 (TCC).
Closure of Children Centres
August 22nd, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and ContractsOn 19 August 2019 Hickinbottom LJ refused the Claimant permission to appeal from the decision of Andrews J in R ( LF ) v BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (2019) EWHC 1817 ( Admin), Local Government Bulletin 12 July 2019. Section 5D of the Childcare Act 2006 does not diminish the entitlement of a local authority to consult only on options it proposes.
Remedies for Breach
August 2nd, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and ContractsIn AEW Europe Ltd v Basingstoke & Deane BC (2019) EWHC 2050 (TCC) it was held that a declaration of ineffectiveness was not available in the circumstances. In Stagecoach v SoS for Transport (EWHC) 2047 (TCC) the Court considered limitation for private and public law claims and abuse of process.
Remedies for Breach
August 2nd, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and ContractsIn AEW Europe Ltd v Basingstoke & Deane BC (2019) EWHC 2050 (TCC) it was held that a declaration of ineffectiveness was not available in the circumstances. In Stagecoach v SoS for Transport (EWHC) 2047 (TCC) the Court considered limitation for private and public law claims and abuse of process.
PSED
August 1st, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Human Rights and Public Sector Equality DutyThere is a failure to have due regard to the PSED before making a decision. Must that decision be quashed? No, says the Court of Appeal in Forward v Aldwyck Housing Group Ltd (2019) EWCA Civ 1334, in the context of a decision by a social housing association, exercising public functions, to bring possession proceedings against a physically disabled tenant, where it was highly likely that the decision would not have been substantially different if the breach had not occurred.