CANCELLATION /SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION

October 31st, 2024 by James Goudie KC in Social Care

Two FTT decisions consider the above : Little Oaks Grimsby Ltd v Ofsted (2024) UKFTT 889 in England and Pleasant Valley Care Ltd v Welsh Ministers (2024) UK FTT 911 in Wales.

In the English case the appeal to the FTT was against Ofsted’s decision to suspend the registration to provide childcare at Little Oaks Nursery. The right of appeal was under Regulation 12 of 2008 Childcare Regulations, pursuant to Section 69 of the Childcare Act 2006. The applicable test is set out in Regulation, by reference to “ risk of harm “ as defined in Regulation 13, and for a duration in accordance with Regulations 10 and 11. The burden of satisfying the threshold test under Regulation 9 and of justifying the decision in terms of a legitimate public interest objective and proportionality is upon the Respondent. The standard of proof is “ reasonable cause to believe”. That falls somewhere between balance of probability and reasonable cause to suspect. The contemplated  risk must be one of significant harm.

In the Welsh case the appeal was under Section 26 of the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016. It was against cancellation of registration as a domiciliary care provider in respect of the regulated activity of personal care. Section 4 of the Act sets out the general objectives of the statutory scheme. Sections 14 and 15 relate to cancellation of registration, and sections 16 and 17 to improvement notices. The Tribunal determines the issue afresh as of the time of the appeal. It makes findings of fact about breaches of relevant requirements and decides whether cancellation of registration is a proportionate and necessary step.

 

INJUNCTIONS

October 30th, 2024 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation

In THURROCK COUNCIL and ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (2024) EWHC 2750 (KB) Bourne J considered, at paras 40-58 inc,  principles emerging from the case law which are relevant to disputes about PROTEST ACTIVITY taking place on or affecting the USE OF THE HIGHWAY. Whilst the public generally has a licence to to be on the highway, if they exceed that licence by doing something on that land which they do not have permission to do, such as TUNNELLING, they commit TRESPASS. Trespass is a tort of STRICT LIABILITY. A Claimant does NOT have to show that have to show damage. The exercise of ECHR rights pursuant to Arts 10 & 11 cannot normally justify a trespass. It is a PUBLIC NUISANCE to obstruct or hinder the FREE PASSAGE of the public along the highway.

 

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

October 30th, 2024 by James Goudie KC in Standards

New protections from sexual harassment have come into force. Employers are required to take “ reasonable steps “ to prevent sexual harassment of their employees. ACAS and the Equality & Human Rights Commission have issued Guidance.

 

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

October 30th, 2024 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation

In APPLICATION BY JR 222 FOR JUDICIAL Review (2024) UKSC 35 the Supreme Court from para 72 considers statutory interpretation, including the principle that Courts should seek to avoid an interpretation that produces an ABSURD result. They say that absurdity is to be given a “ very wide meaning “. It covers, amongst other things, unworkability, impracticality, inconvenience, anomaly or illogicality. The Supreme Court also considers when reliance may be put on Hansard.

 

VOTING

October 25th, 2024 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and Contracts

A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Consultation Document, published on 24 October 2024, seeks views on introducing REMOTE ATTENDANCE and PROXY VOTING in certain circumstances at formal local authority and other meetings in England. The Consultation Period is until 12 December 2024.

 

ANTI – SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

October 24th, 2024 by James Goudie KC in Housing

Two appeals that were heard together, HAJAN v BRENT LBC and KERR v POPLAR HARCA ( 2024 ) EWCA Civ 1260, raised a number of questions about the procedures which a landlord must follow in order to recover possession of a dwelling-house on the ground of anti-social behaviour resulting in conviction for a serious offence. The BRENT case concerned a SECURE TENANCY. The POPLAR case concerned an ASSURED TENANCY.

 

REASONS

October 17th, 2024 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation

In PAN v MINISTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY (2024) UKPC 31 Lady Simler said at paragraphs 37-39 on the duty to provide reasons that, whilst there is no general duty universally imposed on all decision-makers to give reasons, the Courts have recognised ” many circumstances ” in which procedural fairness requires that reasons should be given to a person  adversely affected by a decision, even in a statutory context in which no express duty to give reasons is imposed. Lady Simler said that the benefits of giving reasons are clear : they concentrate the mind and impose a discipline which may contribute to better, more transparent decision-making. The trend of the law has been towards an increase d recognition of the duty to give reasons. There has been a ” strong momentum” in favour of greater openness and transparency in decision-making. The touchstone for what fairness requires in this context is often judged by the ability to make effective the right to challenge an adverse public law decision by judicial review. Even where reasons are given voluntarily, they should be reviewed by reference to the same standards as are applied to reasons given in accordance with an established duty to provide them. Lady Simler added at para 40 that there is no uniform standard or threshold which reasons must satisfy in every case. What is required inevitably depends on the context and the circumstances of the individual case. The nature of the decision itself will affect what is required by reasons.

 

INJUNCTIONS

October 17th, 2024 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation

In THURROCK COUNCIL v ADAMS  ( 2024 ) EWHC 2576 ( KB ) a precautionary injunction was continued against persons unknown to prevent apprehended future obstruction of the highway and trespass by climate change activists. The fact that they were exercising their ECHR rights of freedom  of expression and freedom  of peaceful assembly could not normally justify a trespass. However, where these rights were engaged, the Court had to consider the proportionality of the draft injunction sought.

 

WAIVER OF RIGHT TO TERMINATE CONTRACT

October 17th, 2024 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and Contracts

In URE ENERGY LTD v NOTTING HILL GENESIS (2024) EWHC 2537 ( Comm ) an energy company was held not to have waived its right to terminate an electricity supply contract even though it had continued to perform its contractual obligations for six months after a contractually specified termination event. Although the company’s controlling mind knew that the contract contained a termination clause , he did not appreciate, and could not be expected to have appreciated, that it gave the company a right to terminate in the circumstances which transpired. The Court applied the principles on waiver. Where a party became entitled to terminate a contract it had to elect whether to exercise that right or not . To make an election, it had to be aware of its right to terminate and the facts giving rise to that right. If, having the requisite knowledge, it acted in a manner that was consistent with only one of the two courses, it would be held to have elected accordingly.

 

ALTERNATIVE REMEDY

October 17th, 2024 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation

The appeal to the Supreme Court in McAlleenon (2024) UKSC 31 concerns the exercise of discretion by a Court where the public authority defendant argues that the claimant has an adequate alternative remedy such that judicial review should be refused. The Supreme Court holds that a private prosecution or civil claim in nuisance did not constitute suitable alternative remedies to judicial review. The Supreme Court says that judicial review is concerned with  examining whether a public authority has acted lawfully. The Court has a supervisory role only. Its task is not typically to resolve disputes of fact but to determine the legal question of whether the public authority had proper grounds for acting as it did on the basis of the information available to it. As such, usually, judicial review claims can and should be be determined without the need for procedures which are directed to resolving disputed questions of fact, such as cross-examination of witnesses. Moreover, in human rights cases the Court’s role remains essentially one of review; and complaint to an Ombudsman does not constitute a suitable alternative remedy.