header-logo header-logo

Out for consultation: why our views matter

27 September 2018 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 7810 / Categories: Features , Public , Housing
printer mail-detail

Nicholas Dobson explains why the government was wrong to reduce Housing Possession Duty Schemes without proper consultation

  • The Lord Chancellor acted unlawfully in deciding to reduce the number of Housing Possession Court Duty Schemes without sufficient evidence and in breach of the public sector equality duty.

At first glance, consultation seems straightforward enough. In the public law context, this essentially suggests fairly sounding out those likely to be affected by potential proposals at the outset, so that their views can be taken properly into account before anything is taken forward. But what looks like easy terrain can often turn out to be a quagmire for public authorities.

What have become known as the Gunning principles of consultation (from R v Brent London Borough Council, ex parte Gunning , [1985] 84 LGR 168) have been endorsed as a ‘prescription for fairness’. These are that:

  • consultation must be at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage;
  • the proposer must give sufficient reasons for any proposal to permit of intelligent
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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll