The claimants challenged their removal from a ‘New Deals for Communities’ partnership association. Complaints had been made about manipulative behaviour at meetings in breach of a code of conduct.
Held: A proposal had been made for an investigation of the complaints, but instead the Board had proceeded directly to go to a meeting at which a vote was to be taken. The decision had been procedurally unfair, in that insufficient details were provided of the complaints. They had not been informed in advance of the form the meeting would take: ‘In view of the importance of the outcome of the investigation – namely the possible removal of elected members from a body entrusted with considerable public funds – all these questions should have been addressed beforehand, and the procedure to be adopted made known to the claimants. ‘ Though the Board had power to remove the applicants, the procedure followed was flawed. The decisions were quashed.
Keith J
[2007] EWHC 606 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Boyle, Regina (On the Application of) v Haverhill Pub Watch and Others Admn 8-Oct-2009
The claimant had been banned from public houses under the Haverhill Pub Watch scheme. He now sought judicial review of a decision to extend his ban for a further two years. The Scheme argued that it was not a body amenable to judicial review, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Administrative, Judicial Review
Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.250480