The claimant challenged the substantial increase in court fees in public law children cases in the Fees Orders. The respondent said that the orders were intended to reflect the true costs of such proceedings and that funding had been provided to local authorities to match the increases. The claimants said there had been inadequate consultation and that there was still a shortfall in funding.
Held: The challenge failed. Any common law duty to consult had been displaced by the provisions of the 2003 Act. The defendant had complied with its duties to consult. Further it was not expected that authorities would be affected in performance of their statutory duties by financial considerations. The orders were not irrational, and nor had there been assurances such as to create a legitimate expectation that such orders would not be made.
Dyson LJ, Bennett, Pitchford JJ
 EWHC 2683 (Admin),  CP Rep 13,  1 FCR 1,  PTSR CS20,  1 FLR 39,  Fam Law 13,  BLGR 554
Magistrates’ Courts Fees Order 2008 (SI 2008/1052), Family Proceedings Fees Order 2008 (SI 2008/1054), Children Act 1989 31, Courts Act 2003 92
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Nottinghamshire County Council HL 12-Dec-1985
The House heard a judicial review of the Secretary of State’s assessment of the proper level of expenditure by a local authority.
Held: A ‘low intensity’ of review is applied to cases involving issues ‘depending essentially on political . .
Cited – BAPIO Action Ltd and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another CA 9-Nov-2007
The action group appealed against refusal of a judicial review of guidelines as to the employment of non-EU doctors, saying that they were in effect immigration rules and issuable only under the 1971 Act. The court had said that since the guidance . .
Cited – Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte MFK Underwriting Agents Ltd CA 1990
Legitimate Expectation once created not withdrawn
The claimant said that a change of practice by the Revenue was contrary to a legitimate expectation.
Held: The Inland Revenue could not withdraw from a representation if it would cause: substantial unfairness to the applicant; if the . .
Cited – Bancoult, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimants challenged the 2004 Order which prevented their return to their homes on the Chagos Islands. The islanders had been taken off the island to leave it for use as a US airbase. In 2004, the island was no longer needed, and payment had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.277568