Appeal against an order dismissing the challenge by the appellant, to the lawfulness of the decision of the respondent, the Council to cut its Youth Services budget for the year 2012/2013. The claimant suffered ADHD and relied on services supported by the Council. Judicial review had been refused.
Held: The court upheld the appellant’s argument under section 149, but expressed doubt about whether section 507B(9) was applicable, though this was not disputed by the respondent. The court assumed without deciding, that the section was applicable, and on that assumption it upheld the appellant’s argument. However, the court refused to make the quashing order which was sought.
Rimer LJ said that although in theory a quashing order could be made, the court could not see how this could be done without quashing the respondent’s decision to approve the entire revenue budget for the financial year 2012/13, which had expired nearly three months before the appeal was heard. He concluded: ‘It is now too late to unwind what has been done. . . Judicial review is a discretionary remedy and, even though we have accepted the substantive points which Mr Hunt has advanced, we are of the firm view that he ought not to be granted the quashing order for which he asks. To do so would be detrimental to good administration.
We refuse to grant any relief to Mr Hunt and therefore dismiss the appeal.’
Moore-Bick, Rimer, Underhill LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 1320
Bailii
Equality Act 2010 149, Education Act 1996 507B
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Hunt v North Somerset Council Admn 18-Jul-2012
The claimant who required support from the Council for his ADHD disorder challenged the respondent’s budget insofar as it limited support for children’s services in the Revenue Budget. Ge said that in making its decision to cut the budget, the . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Hunt v North Somerset Council SC 22-Jul-2015
The appellant had sought judicial review of a decision of the respondent to approve a Revenue Budget for 2012/13 as to the provision of youth services. He applied for declarations that the respondent had failed to comply with section 149 of the . .
Main judgment – Hunt, Regina (on The Application of) v North Somerset Council CA 21-Nov-2013
Reasons for costs order made on failure of the claimant’s applications.
Held: The respondent should be entitled to recover half of its costs of the appeal. Rimer LJ said that by the time that the appeal came on for hearing, it was far too late . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Local Government, Judicial Review
Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517453