The Judgment on 10 December 2018 in the EAT of Elisabeth Laing J in OFGEM v Pytel is instructive on when it is possible to read and give effect to a statutory provision so as to make it compatible with ECHR rights. The balance to be struck between the rights of putative whistleblowers and the safeguarding of rights to restrict the circulation of business information obtained in the exercise of regulatory functions was for Parliament and the Secretary of State, not for the Courts.
Traffic Regulation Order
December 11th, 2018 by James Goudie KC in Environment, Highways and LeisureTrail Riders Fellowship v Hampshire County Council (2018) EWHC 3390 (Admin) was a statutory challenge to the decision of the Council to make a local traffic regulation order made under Section 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (“the 1984 Act”). The Order prohibits the use of three linked rural “green lanes” in Hampshire by motor vehicles and motor cycles. Together these lanes form a through-route joining tarmacked public vehicular highways at their three termini. They are unclassified roads.
Consultation
December 11th, 2018 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and ContractsIn R (MP) v SoS for Health and Social Care (2018) EWHC 3392 (Admin) Lewis J said:-
64. … If a public body chooses to consult upon a particular proposal, then it must do fairly and in accordance with well-established principles. If a public body chooses to consult on one set of proposals, but not to consult on another, different set of proposals, then, unless it can be shown that there is a legal obligation to consult upon the second set of proposals, it is not obliged to do so because it is consulting on the first set of proposals. …
65. The fact that the defendant chose to consult upon a very large number of proposals … does not alter the position. The two issues upon which he chose not to consult … were discrete, self-contained issues. The fact that notice of the decision to make those two changes was contained in the document setting out the response to the consultation exercise does not mean that the proposals were part of, or were linked in some way to the proposals that were consulted upon. The defendant did not fail to carry out the consultation exercise properly. The key question, therefore, is whether there was an obligation to consult upon these two changes. Read more »
Homelessness
December 11th, 2018 by James Goudie KC in HousingIn Alibkhiet v Brent LBC and Adam v City of Westminster (2018) EWCA Civ 2742 Lewison LJ began his Judgment (with which Henderson and Asplin LJJ agreed) as follows:-
“You would need to be a hermit not to know that there is an acute shortage of housing, especially affordable housing, in London; and that local government finance is severely stretched. Under the homelessness legislation housing authorities in London have duties to procure housing for the homeless; and must, so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so, accommodate such persons within their own district. These joined appeals concern the lawfulness of the decisions and process by which two London boroughs, in purported exercise of their statutory duty, made offers to accommodate homeless persons outside their respective districts. …” Read more »
Meaning of “Highway”
December 7th, 2018 by James Goudie KC in Environment, Highways and LeisureThe successful appeal to the Supreme Court in Southwark LBC v Transport for London, in which Judgment was given on 5 December 2018, concerned the effect of the GLA Roads and Side Roads (Transfer of Property etc) Order 2000 (SI 2000/1552) (“the Transfer Order”) and the GLA Roads Designation Order 2000 (SI 2000/1117) (“the Designation Order”). By combined operation of those Orders, responsibility for Greater London Authority (“GLA”) roads was transferred from individual London borough councils, including the Respondents (“the Councils”) as local highway authorities, to the Appellant (“TfL”). The provision at the heart of the appeal was Article 2(1)(a) of the Transfer Order, which provides for the transfer of “the highway, in so far as it is vested in the former highway authority”. Read more »
Legitimate Expectation
December 7th, 2018 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and ContractsIn R (Jeffries) v SSHD, (2018) EWHC 3239 (Admin) a Divisional Court held that views given by the then Prime Minister in a private meeting with press misconduct victims, about the desirability of completing the anticipated second part of a Public Inquiry into press misconduct, could not give rise to a legitimate expectation that the second part would go ahead. The meeting had been off the record by agreement, and the Prime Minister could not have thought, or objectively be expected to have thought, that his words could be relied on as creating a legitimate expectation. Read more »
Local Government Reorganisation
November 30th, 2018 by James Goudie KC in Best ValueMHCLG has on 29 November 2018, pursuant to the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, launched an eight week Consultation, for response by 25 January 2019, on a proposal from seven of the eight Northamptonshire councils (the exception being Corby Borough Council) for local government reorganisation in Northamptonshire. An independent inspection report, by Max Caller CBE, had found that the County Council, in this currently two-tier local government area, has failed to meet its “Best Value” duty under the Local Government Act 1999. MrCaller recommended that new single tier, i.e. unitary, authorities should be created. The Government accepted the unitary recommendation, and rejected the option of a single unitary covering the whole of Northamptonshire. Read more »