The court was asked to consider the decision to merge two health authorities. Ouseley J discussed what need to be made available to support the consultation: ‘What needs to be published about the proposal is very much a matter for the judgment of the person carrying out the consultation to whose decision the courts will accord a very broad discretion . . But, in my judgment, sufficient information to enable an intelligible response requires the consultee to know not just what the proposal is in whatever detail is necessary, but also the factors likely to be of substantial importance to the decision, or the basis on which the decision is likely to be taken . . a flawed consultation exercise is not always so procedurally unfair as to be unlawful; R (Greenpeace) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2007]Env LR 29, Sullivan J . . the true test is whether the consultation process was so unfair that it was unlawful . .’
Judges:
Ouseley J
Citations:
[2010] EWHC 1456 (Admin), [2011] BLGR 64, [2010] ACD 83
Links:
Statutes:
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007
Citing:
Cited – Greenpeace Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Admn 15-Feb-2007
The claimant sought to challenge the defendant’s report on the future use of nuclear power, saying that the consultation process had been flawed.
Held: Procedural unfairness may not be so serious as to undermine the decision itself. Sullivan J . .
Cited by:
Cited – Save Our Surgery Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts Admn 7-Mar-2013
The claimants sought judicial review of the report prepared by the defendants under which departments providing childrens’ heart surgery at their regional hospital would close. They complained that the consultation had been inadequate and flawed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Local Government
Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.417088