header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
16 January 2015 / Andrew Eaton
Issue: 7636 / Categories: Features , Local government , Public
printer mail-detail

Consultation matters

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
andreweaton_haringeyboroughmap

What constitutes a fair public consultation following the Moseley judgment, asks Andrew Eaton

In the current climate of public sector austerity, public bodies regularly need to take difficult decisions to go further with fewer resources. In this context, the way in which public bodies make those decisions is coming under increased scrutiny, particularly in relation to tax and welfare.

The Supreme Court has provided guidance on how to conduct a fair public consultation process in R (on the application of Moseley) v London Borough of Haringey [2014] UKSC 56. Moseley is the first time that the UK’s highest court has considered the law on the duty to consult.

Background

As part of its wider public spending reduction agenda, the coalition government resolved in 2012 to abolish the national mechanism by which council tax benefits (CTB) were provided. Under a new regime, local authorities were required to design and operate replacement local schemes, known as council tax reduction schemes (CTRS).

The Local Government Finance Act 2012 introduced a requirement that local authorities publish and

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Regulatory team boosted by partner hire amid rising health and safety demand

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Legal director promoted to partner at specialist pensions firm

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Residential development capability expands with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll