Enfield Borough Council, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Health & Ors

Enfield Borough Council, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Health & Ors

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 delay that caused significant prejudice to the Defendants. The delay was not justified by the circumstances, and the public interest in finality outweighed any injustice to the Claimant.

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, Statutory Consultation, Delay, Alternative Remedies
Administrative Law Health Law Public Law Judicial Review Statutory Consultation Delay Alternative Remedies

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 8
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 and Secretary of State complied with statutory consultation obligations before reconfiguring NHS services
  2. 2 Whether the judicial review application was brought promptly and within the required time limits
  3. 3 Whether delay and prejudice to the Defendants justified refusal of permission for judicial review

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 delay that caused significant prejudice to the Defendants. The delay was not justified by the circumstances, and the public interest in finality outweighed any injustice to the Claimant.

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.