CHAPTER 27
Judicial review
27.4Judicial review of service provision decisions 27.11Judicial review and human rights Cases
27.14Human Rights Act cases Alternative remedies and the limits of judicial review
27.15R v Avon CC ex p M (1999) 2 CCLR 185, [1994] 2 FLR 1006, QBD A local authority had to have a very good reason for departing from the cogently-reasoned conclusion of a complaints panel
27.16R v North Yorkshire CC ex p William Hargreaves (1997–8) 1 CCLR 104, QBD It can be rational to diverge from the conclusions of a complaints panel
27.17R v Haringey LBC ex p Norton (1997–8) 1 CCLR 168, QBD Judicial review will not usually address factual disputes
27.18R v Sutton LBC ex p Tucker (1997–8) 1 CCLR 251, QBD In this case, issues of law meant that the complaints procedure was not an alternative remedy
27.19R v Gloucestershire CC ex p RADAR (1997–8) 1 CCLR 476, QBD A general issue of principle meant that the complaints procedure was not an alternative remedy
27.20R v Wigan MBC ex p Tammadge (1997–8) 1 CCLR 581, QBD Once a local authority has assessed a need as existing, it is under a duty to meet that need and a mandatory order would be granted ordering it to do so
27.21R (Barker) v Barking, Havering and Brentwood Community Healthcare NHS Trust (1999) 2 CCLR 5, CA Detention should be challenged by way of judicial review, not habeas corpus, when the issue was whether administrative decision-making had been lawful
27.22R v Barking and Dagenham LBC ex p Lloyd (2001) 4 CCLR 196, CA In general, a complaint that an assessment or care plan was inadequate should be pursued through the complaints procedure
27.23R (Cowl) v Plymouth CC [2001] EWCA Civ 1935, (2002) 2 CCLR 42 Alternative dispute resolution can be an alternative remedy to judicial review even in a case raising some issues of law and should always be seriously considered
27.24R (B) v Lambeth LBC [2006] EWHC 639 (Admin), (2006) 9 CCLR 239 The function of judicial review is to pronounce upon the lawfulness or otherwise of public decision-making, not to investigate its merits
27.25R (F, J, S, R) v Wirral BC [2009] EWHC 1626 (Admin), (2009) 12 CCLR 452 Minor criticisms of assessments, not likely to result in changed services, should be brought through a complaints procedure
27.26R (Bhatti) v Bury MBC [2013] EWHC 3093 (Admin), (2014) 17 CCLR 64 A wholly new decision-making process in general required a fresh application for judicial review
27.27Re MN (An Adult) [2015] EWCA Civ 411, (2015) 18 CCLR 521 The Court of Protection has no power to require a public authority to provide different services, only to consider whether services on offer are in P’s best interests, so any legal challenge to the sufficiency of services offered must be brought by way of judicial review
27.28R (DAT) v West Berkshire Council [2016] EWHC 1876 (Admin), (2016) 19 CCLR 362 Section 66 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 did not prevent the court from quashing one component of the overall budget calculation where any increased expenditure could be met from reserves
27.30R v Islington LBC ex p Rixon (1997–8) 1 CCLR 119, QBD Where a resource is not available to meet needs that should not be the end of the matter; the local authority should consider acquiring a suitable resource
27.31R v Lambeth LBC ex p A1 and A2 (1997–8) 1 CCLR 336, CA Where a necessary resource to meet a need is not available, a local authority must undertake a since and determined effort to find a solution but, if it does so, is not acting unlawfully in failing to meet the need
27.32R v Wigan MBC ex p Tammadge (1997–8) 1 CCLR 581, QBD Local authorities are required to meet needs that they have accepted as being eligible and a mandatory order may be granted ordering them to do so
27.33R (KM) v Cambridgeshire CC [2012] UKSC 23, (2012) 15 CCLR 374 It is lawful to use a resource allocation system to guide assessment as to what level of personal budget to provide
Costs in judicial review
27.34R (Boxall) v Waltham Forest LBC (2001) 4 CCLR 258, QBD Guidance (now largely superseded) as to how costs liability will be determined when cases settle
27.35R (A, B, X and Y) v East Sussex CC [2005] EWHC 585 (Admin), (2005) 8 CCLR 228 Legal costs incurred in general monitoring of the local authority’s efforts would be disallowed but on the facts it was unrealistic to have expected the claimants to agree to mediation or that mediation would have resulted in settlement and, exceptionally, two sets of costs were awarded to separately represented claimants.
27.36R (B) v Lambeth LBC [2006] EWHC 639 (Admin), (2006) 9 CCLR 239 Adverse costs orders would be made against lawyers who failed adequately to identify proper errors of law in their pleadings
27.37R (M) v Croydon LBC [2012] EWCA Civ 595, [2012] 1 WLR 2607 In general, a claimant would recover costs when the order settling judicial review proceedings accorded them the relief sought in the pre-action protocol letter and judicial review grounds: this leading case sets out the principles of general application
27.38R (Hunt) v North Somerset Council [2015] UKSC 51 If a party to judicial review proceedings establishes after a contested hearing that a public authority acted unlawfully, some good reason would have to be shown why he should not recover his reasonable costs
27.39R (MVN) v Greenwich LBC [2015] EWHC 2663 (Admin), (2015) 18 CCLR 645 A Part 36 offer will not result in indemnity costs being awarded to the successful offeror unless the offer is a genuine attempt to negotiate involving ‘give and take’
27.40R (Baxter) v Lincolnshire CC [2015] EWCA Civ 1290, (2016) 19 CCLR 160 To recover costs, a claimant had to establish a sufficiently clear link between the consent order and the relief he had sought in his claim form
Other
27.41R (C) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] UKSC 2, (2016) 19 CCLR 5 There was no presumption of anonymity for mental patients challenging aspects of their treatment and care in the High Court but anonymity will be granted where that is necessary in the interests of the patient
27.42Wasif and Hossain v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 82 An application for permission to apply for judicial review was totally without merit if it was so unarguable that it was bound to fail, such that neither oral advocacy nor a revised presentation of the case, at an oral renewal hearing, could render it arguable