Challenge to change from Employer Supported Childcare scheme to Tax Free Childcare, and in particular that it would be administered by ational Savings and Investments, saying that as an outside body, that decision should have been dealt with under the 2006 Regulations.
Held: The suspension of implementation shold stay: ‘where there is a serious argument, on which the court will very soon be able to adjudicate, that the proposed arrangements for administering the TFC scheme are unlawful because of the failure to hold a tender, such detriment to the public interest as will result from the delay involved in resolving this issue cannot in my view justify bypassing the question of legality and allowing the scheme to be introduced in a potentially unlawful way.’
Leggatt J
[2014] EWHC 3555 (QB)
Bailii
Public Services Regulations 2006, Directive EU No. 2004/38
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Edenred (UK Group) Ltd v Her Majesty’s Treasury and Others QBD 22-Jan-2015
The claimant challenged the means of implementation of the new scheme of tax-free childcare support, saying that the 2006 Regulations should have been applied before the allocation of the administration of the new scheme had been given to the . .
At first instance (1) – Edenred (UK Group) Ltd v HM Treasury and Others CA 31-Mar-2015
The claimant appealed against refusal of its challenge to the manner of implementation by the respondent of a government policy for Tax-Free Child Care. . .
At first Instance (1) – Edenred (UK Group) Ltd and Another v HM Treasury and Others SC 1-Jul-2015
Challenge to the decision by HM Treasury to use National Savings and Investments to deliver the Government policy of Tax-free Childcare. The claimants said that the 2006 Regulations imposed an obligation to put such contracts out to tender.
Administrative, European
Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.553270