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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll