1. Judicial Review Update Andrew Sharland QC
27 September 2018

2. The duty to give reasons Systemic challenges
Introduction
The duty to give reasons
Systemic challenges
The public sector equality duty
Bias
Irrationality
Procedural matters

3. Duty to give reasons

4. Duty to give reasons (1): The Court of Appeal
Oakley v South Cambridgeshire DC [2017] EWCA Civ 71
PP granted for football stadium in green belt with no reasons in face of officer’s recommendation to refuse
Breach of common law duty to give reasons
Sales LJ: where as here there is a departure from the development plan, need for reasons especially pressing
Elias LJ: More radical. Common law moving towards general duty to give reasons unless there is a proper justification for not doing so.

5. Dover DC v CPRE Kent [2017] UKSC 79
Duty to give reasons (2)
Dover DC v CPRE Kent [2017] UKSC 79
Council approved application for 521 houses against the advice of its own planning officers. No reasons given.
If EU law governs (requiring an EIA) there is a duty to give reasons regardless of outcome. However, aggrieved party will only succeed in a challenge if they can show that there are substantially prejudiced by the failure
No general common law duty to give reasons when granting permission. If significant and long lasting effect on local community and where the Committee disagreed with planning officer, the common law duty to give reasons should apply. Oakley correctly decided.

6. Systemic challenges

7. Systemic challenges
R (Woolcock) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2018] EWHC 17 (Admin)
Challenge to system for enforcing council tax whereby defaulters are committed to prison for non-payment
Alleged that procedure was systemically unfair
Divisional Court dismissed the challenge

8. Systemic challenges – Woolcock cont.
Whether procedure is fair is a matter for the court.
An administrative scheme will be open to a systemic challenge if there is something inherent in the scheme that gives rise to an unacceptable risk of procedural fairness
Conceptual difference between something inherent in a system that gives rise to an unacceptable risk of procedural fairness and even a large number of decisions that are simply individually aberrant
The Claimant must identify the decision under challenge

9. The public sector equality duty

10. R (JHRW) v Leicester City Council [2018] EWCA Civ 1551
Applicability of psed to Council resolutions
Extent of regard necessary
Evidence used to demonstrate due regard has been had- close scrutiny of the debates

11. Bias

12. Bias
R (Miller) v Heath Service Commissioner for England [2018] EWCA Civ 144
Apparent pre-determination bias
Lewis J at first instance concluded no pre-determination
CA allowed appeal
From outset Ombudsman treated doctors as guilt as charged
“Pre-determination arises when a judge or other decision maker reaches a final conclusion before he or she is in possession of all the relevant evidence and arguments.”

13. Irrationality

14. R (Gallaher Group Ltd) v CMA [2018] UKSC 25
Equal treatment not a distinct ground of judicial review
Substantive unfairness not a distinct ground of judicial review
“conspicuous” unfairness adds nothing
Focus on ordinary principles of judicial review: irrationality and legitimate expectation

15. Procedural matters

16. R (Citizens UK) v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 1812
Duty of candour
Different to “disclosure”
A self-policing duty: “the good the bad and the ugly”
Witness statements filed on behalf of public authorities must not deliberately or unintentionally obscure areas of central relevance. There can be no place in this context for “spin”
The duty of candour is a duty to disclose all material facts known to a party in judicial review proceedings. The duty not to mislead the court can occur by omission, for example by the non-disclosure of a material document or fact or by failing to identify the significance of a document or fact

17. R (Khan) v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 1684
M v Croydon and KN (Afghanistan) lay down three categories of case:
(a) cases where a claimant had been wholly successful, whether following a contested hearing or pursuant to a settlement, in which a claimant should normally be entitled to all of his costs;
(b) cases where a claimant had only succeeded in part, whether following a contested hearing or pursuant to a settlement, where there was much to be said for making no order for costs;
(c) cases where there had been some compromise which did not actually reflect the claimant's claims, where there was an even stronger case for there to be no order for costs
courts should not let disputes about costs turn into satellite litigation about the merits of the underlying claim