Enfield Borough Council, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Health & Ors [2009] EWHC 743 (Admin) (08 April 2009)

Enfield Borough Council, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Health & Ors [2009] EWHC 743 (Admin) (08 April 2009)

The application for judicial review was refused because the claim against the Secretary of State was fundamentally misconceived and unarguable, and the claims against the PCTs, though arguable, were brought with inexcusable and prejudicial delay, justifying refusal of permission.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 743 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Enfield Borough Council; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Health; Second Defendant: Barnet Primary Care Trust; Third Defendant: Enfield Primary Care Trust; Fourth Defendant: Haringey Teaching Primary Care Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application to Set Aside Permission for Judicial Review
Outcome
Permission for judicial review refused; previous order granting permission set aside.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Consultation Obligations, Delay in Proceedings, Health Service Reconfiguration, Statutory Interpretation
Administrative Law Health Law Public Law Judicial Review Consultation Obligations Delay in Proceedings Health Service Reconfiguration Statutory Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Enfield Borough Council

Claimant

Secretary of State for Health

First Defendant

Barnet Primary Care Trust

Second Defendant

Enfield Primary Care Trust

Third Defendant

Haringey Teaching Primary Care Trust

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application to Set Aside Permission for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the PCTs were required to consult on the closure of A&E and maternity services at Chase Farm Hospital under s.242(2) of the National Health Service Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether the consultation process was unlawful for failing to include a 'no change' option
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State's confirmation of the PCTs' decision was unlawful

Ratio Decidendi

The application for judicial review was refused because the claim against the Secretary of State was fundamentally misconceived and unarguable, and the claims against the PCTs, though arguable, were brought with inexcusable and prejudicial delay, justifying refusal of permission.

Court Disposition

Permission for judicial review refused; previous order granting permission set aside.

Orders

  • Order of His Honour Judge Pearl granting permission for judicial review set aside.
  • Application for permission to bring a claim for judicial review against all Defendants refused.