header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
06 March 2008 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 7311 / Categories: Features , Local government , Public , Legal services
printer mail-detail

Keeping an open mind

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Lewis provides guidance on bias and predetermination in elections purdah, says Nicholas Dobson

There are many legal snares for the explorer in the local government jungle. Sometimes too much singleminded enthusiasm can blind the unwary to these perils and drop them painfully into an elephant trap. Such may have been the situation when a controversial planning decision by Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council taken during the elections purdah period was quashed by Mr Justice Jackson on 20 December 2007 for apparent bias or apparent predetermination (see R (Lewis) v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council and Persimmon Homes [2007] EWHC 3166 (Admin)). The case includes a thoughtful analysis of the law surrounding bias and predetermination that helpfully draws together (and even reconciles) existing diverse strands. It is also timely, given the forthcoming elections on 1 May 2008 which affect the Greater London Authority and various other authorities. We are also given a more penetrating profile of the mysterious, complex (but increasingly ubiquitous) fair-minded and informed observer.

 

THE DECISION AND ITS CONTEXT

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
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
LexisNexis Legal Awards 2026—the winners!
The winners of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2026 have now been announced, marking another outstanding celebration of excellence, innovation, and impact across the legal profession
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll