TH v Chapter of Worcester Cathedral & Anor [2016] EWHC 1117 (Admin) (17 May 2016)

TH v Chapter of Worcester Cathedral & Anor [2016] EWHC 1117 (Admin) (17 May 2016)

The defendants' decisions were not amenable to judicial review because neither the Chapter of Worcester Cathedral nor the Bishop of Worcester were exercising functions of a public nature in making the impugned decisions. The acts were private, not public, and thus Article 8 ECHR and s.6 HRA were not engaged. Even if they were, the decisions were rational, proportionate, and procedurally fair.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1117 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: TH; First Defendant: Chapter of Worcester Cathedral; Second Defendant: Bishop of Worcester (in his corporate capacity); Interested Party: Worcestershire County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Article 8 ECHR, Safeguarding, Procedural Fairness, Bias, Public Authority Definition
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Ecclesiastical Law Judicial Review Article 8 ECHR Safeguarding Procedural Fairness Bias +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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TH

Claimant

Chapter of Worcester Cathedral

First Defendant

Bishop of Worcester (in his corporate capacity)

Second Defendant

Worcestershire County Council

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants' decisions are amenable to judicial review
  2. 2 Whether Article 8 ECHR is engaged
  3. 3 Whether the defendants are 'hybrid' public authorities under s.6(3)(b) HRA

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' decisions were not amenable to judicial review because neither the Chapter of Worcester Cathedral nor the Bishop of Worcester were exercising functions of a public nature in making the impugned decisions. The acts were private, not public, and thus Article 8 ECHR and s.6 HRA were not engaged. Even if they were, the decisions were rational, proportionate, and procedurally fair.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for judicial review is refused
  • No order for specific disclosure of LADO notes