3.19R (Haggerty) v St Helens Council [2003] EWHC 803 (Admin), (2003) 6 CCLR 352
Extraneous difficulties that limit a local authority’s freedom of manoeuvre can make it lawful to undertake a process of consultation that falls well short of the usual minimum
Facts: St Helens declined to renew its contract with a private care home, when it concluded that the price increase required by the care home was unjustifiable and the residents could be moved safely and in a planned manner. Some residents sought a judicial review of St Helens’ decision not to enter into a new contract with the home.
Judgment: Silber J held that St Helens’ decision did not interfere with the residents’ rights under the ECHR and was not reached in breach of its duty to consult, on the particular facts:
64. In any event, as I have already explained Mr Stoker’s evidence shows that there has been consultation on the transfer of the claimants and how it should be achieved. Thus, there has been consultation but it is said that some relevant matters were not considered in the claimant’s case. I am unable to accept Mr Skilbeck’s complaint that there should have been adequate consultation but this did not take place. Five reasons individually or cumulatively lead me to that conclusion.
65. First, the Council were given seven days by Southern Cross in which to respond to its demands and consultations of the kind referred to in Coughlan’s case would not have been possible as within this period the Council also had to consider its financial position. Secondly, the decision to close the home was that of Southern Cross and not that of the Council with the result that consultation was not required. The claimants’ case is based on the erroneous assumption that it was the Council who chose to terminate the agreement. Thirdly, consultation would not have led to a different decision in respect of Southern Cross’ demands because of the Council’s statutory duties to take account of costs which would have led to the decision it took. Fourthly, the Council was aware that the residents were keen to stay but it was obliged to take into account their statutory duties, which as I have explained in para [16] above required them not to pay more than the Council ‘would usually expect to pay’ for people having the assessment needs of the claimants. Finally, as Mr Wakefield explains that even if the Council had all the information now before it when it responded to Southern Cross’ demands in December 2002, it would have come to the same decision. I accept that statement as being accurate. This shows that even if proper consultation did not take place before the Council sent the letter under challenge, the Council would inevitably have reached the same decision even if proper consultation had been possible and had actually taken place.