Administrative Court rules on adequacy of enquiries by Lord Chancellor when restructuring the procurement of housing legal aid contracts (R (Law Centres Network) v Lord Chancellor)
Alexander Campbell, barrister at Field Court Chambers examines this judgment, which concerns two decisions made by the Lord Chancellor concerning the provision of legal services under the housing possession court duty (HPCD) schemes which were funded by legal aid. The first decision, following a consultation exercise, was to reduce the number of scheme areas from over 100 to 47 and to introduce price-competitive tendering for the HPCD scheme contracts. The second decision was to initiate the procurement process by publishing the relevant tender documents. The changes involved dividing the country into larger geographical areas than before which the Lord Chancellor concluded would make the contracts more financially viable. However this conclusion was not supported by evidence and had the effect that a provider who was awarded a contract would have to service a larger geographical area which entailed additional costs. The Law Centre Network successfully challenged these decisions as having failed to discharge the Tameside duty of inquiry rendering them fatally flawed. Further the decisions were held to be taken in breach of the Public Sector Equality duty and were quashed.
What are the practical implications of this case?
The decision raises important points for lawyers working in national and local government and indeed for any public body.
First and foremost the decision is a reminder for public bodies that they must, when reaching a major decision, carry out proper inquiries into the decision and its impact. Public bodies should be careful not to make the mistake which the Lord Chancellor made in this decision of proceeding on the basis of assumptions which had not actually been substantiated. Where a public body is making a decision for financial reasons eg because it believes that its current way of proceeding is economically unviable, it must conduct sufficient inquiries to show that it is actually the case and, just as importantly, that its proposed new way of working will be a better one. Financial modelling of the current system and the new proposal would be an obvious way of achieving this.
Moreover the decision reminds public bodies of the importance of the public sector equality duty: public bodies must have due regard to the matters enumerated in that duty in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010). The decision in this case reminds public bodies that a formal equality impact assessment is an obvious way of complying with the duty.
What was the background?
Civil courts across the country operate housing duty advice schemes, whereby a qualified representative will provide on-the-spot advice and representation in court to tenants being brought to court by their landlord in a housing matter (or for mortgagors being brought to court by their mortgage provider). Contracts to provide such schemes are awarded by the Legal Aid Agency.
The challenge in this case concerned a decision by the Lord Chancellor to restructure the way that contracts for housing duty schemes are awarded. In essence, the Lord Chancellor decided to make the geographical areas for such contracts considerably larger to make them more financially viable for the providers. Thus, for example, Wales would be treated as one single area so that any law centre or solicitors’ firm awarded a contract in Wales would have to be able to provide the housing duty scheme at County Court hearing centres across all of Wales. In practice this would mean law centres and solicitors’ firms having to pay agents to assist them in certain geographical locations and/or incurring significant travel expenses in travelling around the larger contract areas.
The Law Centre Network members, (who are not for profit providers of legal advice and assistance to people on low incomes), were some of the incumbent providers of housing duty scheme assistance. It challenged the rationale behind the restructuring of the legal aid contracts as being based on insufficient enquiries by the Lord Chancellor such that no rational decision maker could have reached that conclusion.
What did the court decide?
The Administrative Court found for the Law Centre Network and quashed the decisions of the Lord Chancellor to restructure the legal aid contracts and to award them to providers based on the restructured model.
The court reminded itself that the legal duty of a decision-maker is to take reasonable steps to acquaint itself with relevant material (known to public lawyers as ‘the Tameside duty’). The court further reminded itself that the court should only intervene if the decision-maker had acted on the basis of inquiries which no reasonable decision-maker could have been satisfied with.
The court held that the Lord Chancellor’s restructuring had been based on the notion that running a small, more localised housing duty advice scheme was not economically viable or sustainable. However the court held that there was no actual evidence to back up that notion. Instead the court held that it was merely an assumption. The Lord Chancellor argued that an inference could be drawn from the providers who had closed down their housing duty advice service. However the court noted that such providers had withdrawn from the scheme for various different reasons. The court held that without any consideration by the Lord Chancellor of the actual figures involved, or any financial modelling, the Lord Chancellor had not complied with the Tameside duty.
Moreover the court held that the Lord Chancellor had breached the public sector equality duty. There was little in the consultation document by way of consideration of the equalities impact of the restructuring ie the impact on those with protected characteristics who as a consequence of the changes may not receive the wrap around services offered by the law centres that were outside the legal advice and assistance offered in the HCPD legal aid contracts but crucial in providing support which may not otherwise be available. Accordingly the decision was unlawful on that basis too.
Court: High Court, Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court (London)
Judge: Andrews J
Date of judgment: 22 June 2018
Alexander Campbell is a barrister at Field Court Chambers, and a member of LexisPSL’s Case Analysis Expert Panel. Suitable candidates are welcome to apply to become members of the panel. Please contact email@example.com.
The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
Cases and FYI
Court of Session refuses fracking petition
The Court of Session has refused a petition which sought judicial review of certain acts and decisions of the Scottish Government in implementation of what was purportedly an indefinite ban on fracking. The court held the legal effect of certain statements and planning directions made by the Scottish Ministers to the effect that the Scottish Government will not support the development of unconventional oil and gas extraction in Scotland, and a subsequent decision that the directions should continue in force indefinitely, is that there is in fact no prohibition against fracking in force.
See: LNB News 19/06/2018 113.
Scottish court rejects judicial review on revocability of Article 50 notification (Andrew Wightman MSP and others (Petitioners))
On 8 June 2018, the Scottish Court of Session refused a petition for judicial review concerning whether the UK’s notification to withdraw from the EU under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) could be revoked unilaterally. Lord Boyd of Duncansby found that the question being asked was hypothetical and that the conditions for a preliminary reference had not been met. In Lord Boyd’s opinion, the petitioners were seeking judicial support for Parliament to consider the option of the UK remaining in the EU, which was a ‘clear and dangerous encroachment on the sovereignty of Parliament’.
Court of Appeal considers whether UT could uphold FTT decision despite finding material error of law (Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority v First-Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) and another)
In Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority v First-Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) and another  EWCA Civ 1175, in the case of the first interested party, the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) (the UT) had erred in, having found that the First-Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) (the FTT) had made a material error of law, rather than quashing the original decision and/or remitting the case back to the FTT, upholding that decision for other reasons. However, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal in the second interested party's case, held that the UT had been justified in upholding the original FTT decision basing its decision on only one of the FTT's reasons. See: Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority v First-Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) and another  All ER (D) 141 (May).
Landmark victory for Liberty challenging privacy rights (R (on the application of Liberty) v Secretary of State for the Home Department)
The High Court has ruled in R (on the application of Liberty) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 975 (Admin),  All ER (D) 129 (Apr) that part of the government’s flagship surveillance law, the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA 2016), is unlawful following a successful legal challenge from human rights organisation Liberty. Carolina Bracken, barrister at 5 Paper Buildings, discusses the practical implications of the judgment concerning this important constitutional case.
Equal treatment not recognised as a distinct principle of administrative law (R (on the application of Gallaher Group Ltd and others) v Competition and Markets Authority)
In R (on the application of Gallaher Group Ltd and others) v Competition and Markets Authority  UKSC 25, the Supreme Court held that the domestic law did not recognise equal treatment as a distinct principle of administrative law. Consistency was a generally desirable objective, but not an absolute rule. The Supreme Court further held that substantive unfairness was not a distinct legal criterion and was not made so by the addition of terms such as 'conspicuous' or 'abuse of power', which added nothing to the ordinary principles of judicial review. See: R (on the application of Gallaher Group Ltd and others) v Competition and Markets Authority  All ER (D) 77 (May).
Court gives guidance on costs for publicly funded litigants in judicial review (ZN (Afghanistan) and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department)
In ZN (Afghanistan) and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 1059, although the appellant refugees had been able to resist removal from the UK as a result of administrative failings on the part of the respondent Secretary of State, they could not have been regarded as having been successful in the litigation for the reason that, if the appeals had proceeded to be determined on their merits, there could be no doubt that they would have been dismissed. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellants' application for costs. The court also provided guidance on costs in relation to publicly funded litigants. See: ZN (Afghanistan) and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department  All ER (D) 76 (May).
Try it free for 1 week*
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
No Credit Card Required
No Downloads Necessary
* denotes a required field