The Enfield London Borough Council, R (on the application of) v Barnet Clinical Commissioning Group & Ors [2013] EWHC 3496 (Admin) (12 November 2013)

The Enfield London Borough Council, R (on the application of) v Barnet Clinical Commissioning Group & Ors [2013] EWHC 3496 (Admin) (12 November 2013)

The claim failed because the precondition for closure was satisfied: the relevant NHS bodies were satisfied that there was sufficient A&E capacity and primary care services to accommodate changes in patient flows. No clear and unambiguous promise was made to support a legitimate expectation claim. The decision was not a new substantial variation requiring further consultation, but the implementation of earlier, widely consulted decisions. No material consideration was overlooked. There was no arguable case for judicial review.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3496 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Enfield London Borough Council; First Defendant: Barnet Clinical Commissioning Group; Second Defendant: Enfield Clinical Commissioning Group; Third Defendant: Haringey Clinical Commissioning Group; Fourth Defendant: Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust; Fifth Defendant: Secretary of State for Health
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission and Substantive Hearing (rolled Up Hearing)
Outcome
Permission refused and claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Legitimate Expectation, Consultation Requirements, NHS Reconfiguration, Primary Care Services, Statutory Interpretation
Administrative Law Health Law Public Law Judicial Review Legitimate Expectation Consultation Requirements NHS Reconfiguration Primary Care Services +1 more

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Enfield London Borough Council

Claimant

Barnet Clinical Commissioning Group

First Defendant

Enfield Clinical Commissioning Group

Second Defendant

Haringey Clinical Commissioning Group

Third Defendant

Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust

Fourth Defendant

Secretary of State for Health

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission and Substantive Hearing (rolled Up Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether closure of Chase Farm A&E was unlawful for failure to comply with a precondition imposed by the Secretary of State
  2. 2 Whether there was a legitimate expectation that primary care improvements would precede closure
  3. 3 Whether the decision represented a substantial variation requiring consultation under the 2013 Regulations

Ratio Decidendi

The claim failed because the precondition for closure was satisfied: the relevant NHS bodies were satisfied that there was sufficient A&E capacity and primary care services to accommodate changes in patient flows. No clear and unambiguous promise was made to support a legitimate expectation claim. The decision was not a new substantial variation requiring further consultation, but the implementation of earlier, widely consulted decisions. No material consideration was overlooked. There was no arguable case for judicial review.

Court Disposition

Permission refused and claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Permission to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Claim dismissed.