This week's edition of Local Government weekly highlights includes the latest developments on local government reorganisation, including Hampshire County Council and Portsmouth City Council launching judicial review proceedings against the government's Hampshire LGR plans. It also features updates on public procurement, including Procurement Policy Note 025 on protecting national security through public procurement, alongside updated guidance on Procurement Act 2023 contract payment information. Case analysis includes BNF v Newport CC on the High Court's ruling that a council's approach to respite care was unlawful, Thomas Connors v Bromley LBC, on the scope of section 70C of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the relevance of policy changes when declining to determine planning applications, and Barclay and CAGNE v SoST, in which the High Court upheld development consent for Gatwick Airport's northern runway project. Case reports include Hylton v Medway Council, in which the High Court quashed the council’s refusal to provide interim care support pending reassessment and Asiimwe v Lambeth LBC, in which the High Court remitted a reasonable adjustments claim concerning out-of-borough temporary accommodation. It also includes further updates on Local government reorganisation, Public procurement, Adult social care, Planning, Children's social care, Social housing, Education, Governance, Local authority prosecutions and Healthcare.

This week’s edition of Local Government weekly highlights includes: case analysis of R (BZ) v SSWP, in which the Administrative Court requested the CoJ preliminary ruling under the UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement in a universal credit and domestic violence case. Case reports include MA v SSWP, in which the UT set aside the SSWP’s decision to refuse the claimant’s PIP award due to the claimant having taken an extended trip to India; Fatolahzadeh v Barnet LBC, in which the court clarified that deficiencies in housing needs assessments do not invalidate a finding of suitability if remedied adequately by a review decision and R (LL and AU) v Trafford MBC, in which the court found the LA’s Council Tax Reduction Scheme unlawful as not compliant with requirements under LGFA 1992 and EqA 2010. It includes coverage of CMA’s response to the Cabinet Office’s public procurement consultation; IfG’s report on local government reorganisation challenges and options; updated anti-social behaviour powers guidance for frontline professionals and the Education Committee calling for transformation of SEND provision in mainstream schools and FE sector reform. It also includes further updates on Social housing, Public procurement, Governance, Education, Healthcare, Social care, Children’s social care and Planning.

This week’s edition of Local Government weekly highlights includes the latest coverage on local government reorganisation and the DfE SEND white paper and consultation on education reform. It features case analysis of Hampshire CC v GC, clarifying when a child with SEND remains ‘in the authority’s area’ for EHCP purposes; R (UYR) v Derby CC on interim relief in age disputes; Stockport MDC v EKK on capacity to marry; WM v Bradford District Care NHS Foundation Trust on the First-tier Tribunal (Mental Health)’s powers to recommend leave under MeHA 1983, s 72(3); Tower Hamlets LBC v Leaseholders, in which the Court of Appeal held that RTB leaseholders were not liable via service charge for remedying inherent structural defects; Trafford MBC v SSHCLG, confirming that allocation-wide infrastructure contributions must be considered despite the absence of a masterplan; R (RA and AA) v SSFCDO on the court’s power to make orders affecting claims beyond those before it, R (Good Law Project) v EHRC, upholding guidance on single-sex spaces; and R (MXV) v Home Secretary, marking a significant shift in the application of the Hardial Singh principles. It also includes expert analysis on the Building Safety Regulator as a standalone body. This edition includes further updates on Local government reorganisation, Local government finance, Education, Children’s social care, Adult social care, Social housing, Planning, Judicial review, Public procurement, Licensing and Pensions.

This week's edition of Local Government weekly highlights includes: case analysis of Millbrook Healthcare Ltd v Devon CC, in which the court found that damages are an adequate remedy in the procurement dispute despite a not sufficiently serious breach; Birmingham CC and Wolverhampton CC v Persons Unknown, in which the court found compelling justification to continue the injunctions to prevent dangerous car-cruising against persons unknown; R (Ladybill) v Sheffield magistrates’ court & Rotherham MBC, in which the High Court quashed a decision refusing a recusal application; R (AY) v Vale of Glamorgan CBC, in which the court found that there is no right to a solicitor when individual development plans are reviewed; R (Boswell) v SSESNZ, in which greenhouse gas emissions are under scrutiny in a development consent order decision and Ross v SSHCLG and Renewable Energy Systems Ltd, in which the court confirmed that overplanting in solar schemes may be justified beyond panel degradation. Case reports include R (Trinity College (CSP) Ltd) v SSHCLG, in which the court allowed applications for possession orders and final injunctions against persons unknown in relation to disruptive protests conducted by the ‘Cambridge for Palestine’ group; Cetin v Epping FDC, in which the Upper Tribunal clarified that an agent engaged on a ‘let only’ basis with no further management responsibilities does not qualify as ‘person managing’ an HMO under HA 2004; Mitterhuber v Hernandez, in which the court allowed an appeal against a rent repayment order as the FTT was found to have erred in determining the occupancy nature of the property required for the HA 2004 offences; R (AAM) v Bromley LBC, in which the court held that the LA erred in law by taking into account the claimant’s accommodation provided under IAA 1999, s 95 when determining whether exceptional circumstances existed under ChA 1989, s 24 and Norfolk CC v CA, in which the court addressed an application seeking to vary a Transparency Order and found that competing human rights had to be balanced, ultimately favouring the right to freedom of expression. It includes further updates on public procurement, Governance, Education, Social housing, Children’s social care, Social care, Local government finance and Environmental law and climate change.

This week's edition of Local Government weekly highlights includes the latest developments on local government reorganisation, with MHCLG publishing the latest decisions on unitary proposals in Hampshire and the Solent, Greater Essex and Norfolk & Suffolk while confirming that a decision has not yet been made for East Sussex and Brighton and Hove. Case analysis includes Perrin v North Devon DC, in which the High Court quashed planning permission due to inadequate reasons and apparent bias; Housing 35 Plus Ltd v Nottingham CC, where the Court of Appeal held that co-operative rules did not satisfy the exemption from HMO licensing under the HA 2004; and Re HDEB, which set out the factors to be considered on an application to be appointed a deputy for personal welfare under MCA 2005 particularly in respect of an adult child. Case reports include Munemo v City of Wolverhampton Council, in which the Court of Appeal allowed the council’s appeal and restored a finding of intentional homelessness where a tenancy had been obtained by deception and T (Inherent Jurisdiction: Deprivation of Liberty) regarding an appeal considering whether the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction can be invoked for DOL where no secure accommodation is available. This edition includes further updates on Local government reorganisation, Public procurement, Planning, Social housing, Adult social care, Children’s social care, Education, Governance, Local government finance, Healthcare, Highways and Environmental law and climate change.

This week's edition of Local Government weekly highlights includes expert analysis on the decisions in Bradford MDC v Kazi where the Court of Appeal confirmed that the LA and the FTT acted lawfully when calculating fines for housing violations, ensuring their discretion was not improperly restricted; ZRR v Bexley on failure to provide suitable temporary accommodation and assessment of children’s needs and PCC West Midlands v SSHD on insufficient information in a consultation affecting a fair opportunity to participate. Case reports include the decision in ETM Contractors Ltd v Bristol CC on dismissal of an application to extend time for serving a JR claim form of the LA’s decision to grant planning permission for a water and recycling facility. This weekly highlights also include further updates on Social housing, Governance, Public procurement, Healthcare, Education, and Local government finance.

This week's edition of Local Government weekly highlights includes the latest public procurement developments, including analysis of Prime Way Care v Southwark London Borough of Southwark, the first reported Procurement Act 2023 specific disclosure judgment, in which the High Court signalled continuity with pre-Act procurement disclosure principles and a pragmatic approach to focused, proportionate disclosure; and a case report on Involve Visual Collaboration v DWP, where the High Court upheld a procurement exclusion despite finding a transparency breach in the bid evaluation. It includes case analysis of Gould v Devon CC, on the relevance of Care Act 2014 duties to a decision to close a non-statutory mental health support service plus expert analysis of the government's consultation on expanded planning powers for mayors in England and of the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 licensing regime. Case reports include XUY v Croydon LBC, in which the High Court quashed child protection plans for four children due to insufficient section 47 enquiries and Girdler v Caerphilly CBC, where the High Court upheld the council's library closure strategy against equality and consultation challenges. Further updates include Adult social care, Planning, Local authority prosecutions, Children's social care, Governance, Social housing and Pensions.

This week's edition of Local Government weekly highlights includes expert analysis of the new Procurement Act 2023 which came into force on 24 February 2025 as well as the updated government model contracts for the Procurement Act 2023 plus case analysis of Stanuszek v Bunyan (Listing officer) (No 2) in which the High Court re-imposed pre-1 December 2023 council tax liability on HMO tenants with exclusive possession of bedrooms; and Re X and Y in which the Court of Appeal found that there is no jurisdiction to set aside a validly made order for the adoption of a child other than by way of appeal. Case reports include Unipart Group Ltd v Supply Chain Coordination Ltd in which the court lifts the automatic suspension under PCR 2015; Oxfordshire CC v M and others in which the court determined that the best interests of the child B is to live with her father and permanently relocate out of the jurisdiction; The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead v Mother in which the court considered allegations of abuse by the father against the mother and whether the findings met the threshold for making a care or supervision order; and R (RWU (by his litigation friend LTA) (anonymity direction continued)) v the Governing Body of A Academy in which the Court of Appeal found the claimant’s exclusion from school to be discriminatory and a violation of his human rights as the governing body failed to make reasonable adjustments for the claimant’s disability. It also includes further updates on Public procurement, Local government finance, Children’s social care, Education, Social housing, Social care and Environmental law and climate change.

This week's edition of Local Government weekly highlights includes expert analysis of the decision in Karim v UT where the High Court ruled it has no jurisdiction to reconsider refusal of judicial review. Case reports include the decision in University of Birmingham v Persons Unknown concerning possession of campus against university students and others protesting on campus; the Supreme Court’s decision in Finch v Surrey CC holding the council’s decision to grant planning permission for petroleum extraction unlawful; A Council v Mother and others where the courts decided that the local authority’s (LA) evidence did not prove that the mother inflicted injury on the child; Hillingdon LBC v BT and others on a placement order to the LA to meet a child’s welfare needs; The Father v Worcestershire CC on dismissal of a father’s order of habeas corpus for secure return of children to his care; dismissal of an appeal against the LGSCO’s refusal to provide information in Tilson v ICO; dismissal of an appeal against the opening of a regulatory inquiry into a charity in Haidar v Charity Commission and finally, Elstone v ICO in which the appeal against the ICO’s decision concerning viability assessment from the district council was allowed in part. This weekly highlights also includes further updates on Judical review, Education, Environmental law and climate change, Public procurement, Children’s social care, Social care, Governance and Licensing.

This week's edition of Local Government weekly highlights includes enhanced coverage of the 2025 Spring Statement with expert comment for local government practitioners, enhanced Supreme Court coverage of the decision in R (The Spitalfields Historic Building Trust) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets and another which held that local authorities can lawfully restrict planning committee voting to members who attended previous meetings on an application plus expert analysis of the decision in R (TZA) v a Secondary School, in which the Court of Appeal emphasised the limited role of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) in individual school exclusion decisions and the importance of a balanced approach to these decisions and the autonomy of schools; and Ramblers v Secretary of State which considered the meaning of ‘actually enjoyed’ and ‘interruption’ in section 31(1) of the Highways Act 1980. Case reports include the decision in R (TYC (by his litigation friend and mother, KVD) v Birmingham CC in which the court found the LA’s decision on a child’s home-to-school transport irrational for failing to consider exceptional circumstances of the mother being a single parent; Barnet LBC v FW and others in which the court considered whether a care order should be granted if the child could be cared for by his grandmother; R (Mohamed Conde) v The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in which the court considered the LA’s decision not to consider an out-of-time request to review a homelessness decision under the Housing Act 1996; Socrattes Ofori-Addo v Haringey LBC in which the court ruled that where a review is requested regarding suitability of accommodation, the reviewing officer is not obligated to carry out a review of all potential duties owed by the LA beyond the review request; and Manaquel Company Ltd v Lambeth LBC, in which the Upper Tribunal heard an appeal on costs refusal in housing improvement notice dispute. This weekly highlights also includes further updates on Education, Highways, Social housing, Children’s social care, Social care, Governance and Healthcare.

This week's edition of Local Government weekly highlights includes: enhanced coverage featuring expert commentary of the 2025 Budget with key announcements for local government practitioners and the Supreme Court judgment in R (Jwanczuk) v SSWP, allowing the Secretary of State's appeal in an Article 14 challenge to BSP contribution condition. It includes case analyses of R (National Association of Head Teachers and Barbara Middleton) v Ofsted on a judicial review challenge to the legality of the 2025 Ofsted inspection framework; the Court of Appeal case of R (SAG) v Governing Body of Winchmore School challenging the permanent exclusion of a pupil for entering a teacher's hotel room without permission to retrieve their confiscated phone; R (on the application of Master Zo) (a child by his litigation friend, AK of the Refugee Council) v Hounslow London Borough Council on an application for judicial review concerning a putative child; and R (Wildfish) v Buckinghamshire Council; R (Jane Wood) v Buckinghamshire Council concerning a judicial review of Buckinghamshire housing approval. It also includes a case report on the Court of Appeal case of Cifci v Sutton LBC in relation to intentional homelessness, among others. It includes further coverage on Pensions, Education, Social housing, Children’s social care, Public procurement, Governance, Local government finance, Planning, Social care, Healthcare and Licensing.

This week's edition of Local Government weekly highlights includes appeals to the Upper Tribunal by Global 100 against a decision granting the respondent property guardian's application for rent repayment orders; in Next Location Company Ltd v Haringey LBC, which overturned a financial penalty for managing an unlicensed HMO; and in Islam V Thanet DC appeal overturning the refusal to extend time for his appeal against a financial penalty. Further updates include details of the new guidance published by the LGA for councils on implementation of the Supported Housing Act. Case updates includes rejection of DOLS orders in Staffordshire CC v Jake's Grandmother and in Kent CC v The Mother; (GW) v Dudley MBC, relating to the assessment of the claimant as a ‘child in need’ under ChA 1989, s 17 and R (on the application of AYX) v Camden LBC granting interim relief over disputed age assessment of asylum seeker. Further developments include updated Cabinet Office guidance on Payments Compliance Notices under the Procurement Act 2023, clarifying enforcement and reporting duties; HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) notes for legal representatives and local authorities on coming off the court record and the ICO's consultation on draft guidance for public authorities covering the recognised legitimate interest basis for requesting personal information in support of public tasks or official functions.