Section C of The Judicial Review Acknowledgment of Service Form

{\rtf1 \ansi
{\colortbl;
\red0\green0\blue0;
\red255\green255\blue255;
}
{\fonttbl {
\f0 Arial;}{
\f1 Symbol;}{
\f2 Times New Roman;}{
\f3 Georgia;}{
\f4 sans-serif;}{
\f5 serif;}{
\f6 Source Sans Pro;}{
\f7 Arial Unicode MS;}
}
{\*\generator Apache XML Graphics RTF Library;}
\fet0 \ftnbj
{\*\listtable
{\list\listtemplateid-1061013284\listsimple{\listlevel\leveljc\levelfollow0\
levelspace0\levelindent586{\leveltext\'01\u160\'3f}{\levelnumbers}}{\listname ;}\
listid-533800969}
}
{\*\listoverridetable
{\*\listoverride{\listid-533800969\listoverridecount0\ls1}}
}
\paperw12240 \paperh15840 \margt1080 \margb1080 \margl1080 \margr1080 \headery720 \
footery720 \itap0 \cols1
\sectd {\header {
{\trowd \ltrrow \trleft0
\clpadb60 \clpadfb3 \clpadl400 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \clbrdrb \brdrcf17 \brdrw20 \
brdrs \clbrdrl \trql \clvertalb \clwWidth9380 \cellx9380
\clpadb60 \clpadfb3 \clpadl400 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \clbrdrb \brdrcf17 \brdrw20 \
brdrs \clbrdrr \trql \clwWidth700 \cellx10080
\intbl
{\b0 \cf1 \f0 \ri0 \i0 \ql \fs18 \li0
{\b0 \cf1 \f0 \ul0 \strike0 \i0 \fs18
}
{\b1 \cf18 \f0 \i0 \fs18
{\b1 \cf18 \f0 \ul0 \strike0 \i0 \fs18 \sa0 \sb0
Section C of the Judicial Review Acknowledgment of..., UKBC-BULLENL...
}
}
}
}\b0 \cf1 \f0 \ri0 \ul0 \strike0 \i0 \ql \fs18 \li0 \sa0 \sb0 \intbl \cell \intbl
{\qr \b0 \cf1 \f0 \ri0 \i0 \fs18 \li0
}\qr \b0 \cf1 \f0 \ri0 \i0 \fs18 \li0 \intbl \cell \row }
{\trowd \lastrow \trleft0
\clbrdrb \clbrdrl \trql \clwWidth10080 \cellx10080
\intbl
{\b0 \cf1 \f0 \ri0 \i0 \ql \fs18 \li0
}\b0 \cf1 \f0 \ri0 \i0 \ql \fs18 \li0 \intbl \cell \row }}\par }{\footer {
\clpadl60 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \brdrcf17 \brdrw20 \brdrs \clbrdrb \clbrdrl \trql \
clvertalb \clwWidth9300 \cellx9300
\clpadl60 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \brdrcf17 \brdrw20 \brdrs \clbrdrb \clbrdrr \trql \
clwWidth700 \cellx10000
\intbl
{\b0 \cf17 \f0 \ri0 \i0 \ql \fs20 \li0
\u169\'3f 2024 Thomson Reuters.
}
}\b0 \cf17 \f0 \ri0 \ul0 \strike0 \i0 \ql \fs20 \li0 \sa0 \sb0 \intbl \cell \intbl
{\qr \b0 \cf17 \f0 \ri0 \i0 \fs20 \li0
{\b0 \i0 \ul0 \fs20 \f0 \chpgn }
}\qr \b0 \cf17 \f0 \ri0 \ul0 \strike0 \i0 \fs20 \li0 \intbl \cell \row }}\par }
{\b0 \cf1 \f2 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0 \par}\sect\sbknone\pgncont\cols1{\ids0
{\b0 \cf1 \f2 \i0 \fs20
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f2 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
}
{\b0 \cf19 \f2 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
{\b0 \cf19 \f2 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
{\b1 \cf20 \f2 \ri0 \i0 \ql \fs36 \li0
Section C of the Judicial Review Acknowledgment of Service Form
\par
}
}
}
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f2 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
{\b0 \cf1 \f2 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0
{\b0 \cf45 \f2 \ri0 \i0 \ql \fs20 \li0
{\b0 \cf45 \f2 \ri0 \i0 \ql \fs20 \li0
{\b0 \cf21 \f2 \i0 \fs20
}
Bullen & Leake & Jacob\rquote s Precedents of Pleadings 19th Ed.
\par
}
}
{\b0 \cf45 \f2 \ri0 \i0 \ql \fs20 \li0
Original Mainwork
\par
}
}
{\b0 \cf45 \f2 \ri0 \i0 \ql \fs20 \li0
Volume 2
\par
}
}
{\b0 \cf45 \f2 \ri0 \i0 \ql \fs20 \li0
Part W - Judicial Review
\par
}
}
{\b0 \cf45 \f2 \ri0 \i0 \ql \fs20 \li0
Chapter 80 - Applications for Judicial Review
\par
}
}
{\b0 \cf45 \f2 \ri0 \i0 \ql \fs20 \li0
Section C of the Judicial Review Acknowledgment of Service Form
\par
}
}
}
}
{\shading10000 \b0 \cf1 \cfpat53 \f2 \ri200 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li200
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f2 \ri200 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li200
{\b0 \cf1 \f2 \ri200 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li200
{\b0 \cf1 \f2 \ri10080 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li-760
{\b1 \cf18 \f2 \ri10080 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li-760
80-W4
\par
}
}
}
{\b0 \cf21 \f2 \i0 \fs20
}
{\b0 \cf21 \f2 \i0 \fs20
}
{\b0 \cf21 \f2 \i0 \fs20
}
{\b0 \cf21 \f2 \i0 \fs20
}
The Defendant addresses each of the Claimant\u8217\'3fs grounds in the order in
which they appear in the claim form.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f2 \ri200 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li200
{\b0 \cf25 \f2 \ri200 \i0 \qj \fs26 \li200
{\b0 \cf25 \f2 \i0 \fs26
1.
\par
}
}
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f2 \ri200 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li200
{\b0 \cf21 \f2 \i0 \fs20
}
{\b0 \cf21 \f2 \i0 \fs20
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f2 \i1 \fs20
Illegality:
}
}
the Council has made no assumption as to the needs of the Claimants. The decision
under challenge was taken only in principle, and was subject to a full assessment
of the impact upon the residents of their having to move. Such a two-stage process
is lawful:
}
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "https://uk.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?
findType=Y&serNum=2001560806&pubNum=6448&originatingDoc=ICBDDD3F06E4911E796F2DC4386
420945&refType=UC&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=PLUK1.0&transitionType=Comm
entaryUKLink&contextData=(sc.Category)" }{\fldrslt
{\b0 \cf21 \f2 \i1 \fs20
R. (Cowl) v Plymouth City Council [2002] 1 W.L.R. 803
}
}}}
at 807.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f2 \ri200 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li200
{\b0 \cf25 \f2 \ri200 \i0 \qj \fs26 \li200
{\b0 \cf25 \f2 \i0 \fs26
2.
\par
}
}
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f2 \ri200 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li200
{\b0 \cf21 \f2 \i0 \fs20
}
{\b0 \cf21 \f2 \i0 \fs20
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f2 \i1 \fs20
Irrationality and proportionality:
}
}
The Council assessed the financial implications of keeping Fairview open and
compared the position in relation to the Oaks. It could not afford to keep open
both. On a long term basis, it concluded that it was more viable to carry out
repairs on the Oaks and keep that home open. The Courts should be slow to interfere
with decisions relating to allocation of scarce resources by local authorities:
see, for example
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f2 \i1 \fs20
R. (Birmingham Care Consortium) v Birmingham City Council [2002] EWHC Admin 2118
}
}
. Further, the limited repairs proposed by the Claimant (as a proportionate
response to the acknowledged budgetary pressures) would not enable Fairview to meet
the best practice standards set by the National Care Standards Commission. Further,
the in-principle decision to close Fairview was driven by more than budgetary
considerations, but was part of a policy (endorsed by the Department of Health) to
promote a move away from reliance on long term residential care, and towards
domiciliary care and sheltered housing.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f2 \ri200 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li200
{\b0 \cf25 \f2 \ri200 \i0 \qj \fs26 \li200
{\b0 \cf25 \f2 \i0 \fs26
3.
\par
}
}
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f2 \ri200 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li200
{\b0 \cf21 \f2 \i0 \fs20
}
{\b0 \cf21 \f2 \i0 \fs20
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f2 \i1 \fs20
Consultation:
}
}
The Defendant accepts that the first the Claimants would have known about the
proposal was by letter of May 1. However:
\par
}
}{\fi-360 \li {\*\pn \pnlvlblt \ilvl0 \ls1 \pnindent586 \pnf1 {\f2 \pntxtb \
u160\'3f}}{\listtext \b0 \cf1 \f2 \ri200 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li586 \u160\'3f\tab }\ls1
{\pntext }
{\pard }\b0 \cf1 \f2 \ri200 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li586
{\b0 \cf21 \f2 \i0 \fs20
}
{\b0 \cf21 \f2 \i0 \fs20
}
{\b0 \cf21 \f2 \i0 \fs20
}
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f2 \ri200 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li586
{\b0 \cf1 \f2 \i0 \fs20
(a)
}
}
{\b0 \cf21 \f2 \i0 \fs20
}
{\b0 \cf21 \f2 \i0 \fs20
}
{\b0 \cf21 \f2 \i0 \fs20
}
The letter referred to the fact that further information was available at the
Defendant\u8217\'3fs offices as to the need for and costs of the repair; and
offered a meeting with any residents who wished to understand more about the
reasons why the Defendant was considering closing Fairview. The residents were
therefore in a position to give a fully informed response.
\par {\pntext }
}
}
}
{\pntext }
{\b0 \cf21 \f2 \i0 \fs20
}
{\b0 \cf21 \f2 \i0 \fs20
}
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f2 \ri200 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li586
{\b0 \cf1 \f2 \i0 \fs20
(b)
}
}
{\b0 \cf21 \f2 \i0 \fs20
}
{\b0 \cf21 \f2 \i0 \fs20
}
The deadline of June 1, while expeditious, was not unfairly so. In any event,
reasonable consideration would have been given to any resident\u8217\'3fs request
for more time to provide a response: but no such request was received.
\par {\pntext }
}
}
}
{\pntext }
{\b0 \cf21 \f2 \i0 \fs20
}
{\b0 \cf21 \f2 \i0 \fs20
}
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f2 \ri200 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li586
{\b0 \cf1 \f2 \i0 \fs20
(c)
}
}
{\b0 \cf21 \f2 \i0 \fs20
}
{\b0 \cf21 \f2 \i0 \fs20
}
It is accepted that the Council had, prior to the consultation, formed a
preliminary view that Fairview should be closed. However it properly and
conscientiously took into account the results of the consultation: for example by
delaying the originally proposed closure date to await the opening of a new private
home in the vicinity which many residents stated a wish to go to if Fairview
closed. The need for consultation is not inconsistent with the legitimate potential
for predisposition towards a particular outcome:
}
{\b0 \cf21 \f2 \i1 \fs20
R. (The Mayor and Citizens of Westminster) v The Mayor of London [2002] EWHC 2440
Admin
}
}}}
.
\par {\pntext }
}
}
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f2 \ri200 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li200
{\b0 \cf25 \f2 \ri200 \i0 \qj \fs26 \li200
{\b0 \cf25 \f2 \i0 \fs26
4.
\par
}
}
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f2 \ri200 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li200
{\b0 \cf21 \f2 \i0 \fs20
}
{\b0 \cf21 \f2 \i0 \fs20
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f2 \i1 \fs20
Article 8:
}
}
The Defendant took its decision on the basis that in some cases, the residents\
u8217\'3f rights under Article 8(1) would be interfered with to some extent.
However it carried out the balancing exercise required of it under Article 8(2),
and found that the decision to close the home was, given the financial and policy
considerations referred to above, the only option open to it.
}
The Courts should be slow to interfere with such an assessment:
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f2 \i1 \fs20
R. (Phillips & Rowe) v Walsall MBC [2001] EWHC (Admin)
}
}
;
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f2 \i1 \fs20
R. v Madden v Bury MBC [2002] EWHC 1992 (Admin)
}
}
.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f2 \ri200 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li200
{\b0 \cf25 \f2 \ri200 \i0 \qj \fs26 \li200
{\b0 \cf25 \f2 \i0 \fs26
5.
\par
}
}
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f2 \ri200 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li200
{\b0 \cf21 \f2 \i0 \fs20
}
{\b0 \cf21 \f2 \i0 \fs20
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f2 \i1 \fs20
Alternative remedy:
}
}
as pointed out in the Defendant\u8217\'3fs letter dated 1 September 2010 (sent
pursuant to the Judicial Review pre-action protocol in response to the Claimants\
u8217\'3f letter before claim), the Claimants have failed to pursue the Defendant\
u8217\'3fs internal complaints procedure set up pursuant to
}
86420945&refType=UL&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=PLUK1.0&transitionType=Co
mmentaryUKLink&contextData=(sc.Category)" }{\fldrslt
s.7B of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970
}}}
. This procedure would have enabled them to raise their present complaints. The
Claimants in these proceedings would, even if successful, be able to achieve no
more than they could had they followed the above procedure. For this additional
reason, the Court should refuse to exercise its discretion to grant the Claimants
permission to apply: see
}
{\b0 \cf21 \f2 \i1 \fs20
R. (Cowl) v Plymouth City Council
}
}}}
, referred to above.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
}
{\b0 \cf1 \f2 \ri0 \i0 \qj \fs20 \li0 {
\clcbpat2 \clpadt24 \clpadft3 \clpadl100 \clpadfl3 \clpadr24 \clpadfr3 \clbrdrt \
brdrcf23 \brdrw10 \brdrs \clbrdrb \clbrdrl \trql \clvertalt \clwWidth4320 \
cellx4320
\clcbpat2 \clpadt30 \clpadft3 \clpadl100 \clpadfl3 \clpadr30 \clpadfr3 \clbrdrt \
brdrcf23 \brdrw10 \brdrs \clbrdrb \clbrdrr \trql \clvertalt \clwWidth5760 \
cellx10080
\intbl
{\ri24 \li24
{\b1 \cf23 \f2 \ri24 \i0 \ql \fs16 \li24
{\b1 \cf23 \f2 \i0 \fs16 \chcbpat2
End of Document
\par
}
}
}
}\b1 \cf23 \f2 \strike0 \i0 \fs16 \sa0 \sb0 \ri24 \ul0 \ql \li24 \chcbpat2 \intbl \
cell \intbl
{\ri30 \li30
{\b1 \cf23 \f2 \ri30 \i0 \ql \fs20 \li30
{\b1 \cf23 \f2 \i0 \fs20 \chcbpat2
\u169\'3f 2024 SWEET & MAXWELL
\par
}
}
}
}\b1 \cf23 \f2 \strike0 \i0 \fs20 \sa0 \sb0 \ri30 \ul0 \ql \li30 \chcbpat2 \intbl \
cell \row }}\par
}
}\sect }

Section C of The Judicial Review Acknowledgment of Service Form

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Section C of The Judicial Review Acknowledgment of Service Form

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Section C of The Judicial Review Acknowledgment of Service Form

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

{\rtf1 \ansi

You might also like