The Enfield London Borough Council, R (on the application of) v Barnet Clinical Commissioning Group & Ors

The Enfield London Borough Council, R (on the application of) v Barnet Clinical Commissioning Group & Ors

There was no clear, unambiguous precondition or promise that all primary care improvements would precede closure; the only conditions were sufficient A&E capacity and ability of primary care to accommodate patient flows, which the CCGs were satisfied had been met. No legitimate expectation or requirement for further consultation arose. The claim disclosed no arguable ground for judicial review.

Parties
Claimant: Enfield London Borough Council; Defendant: Barnet Clinical Commissioning Group; Defendant: Enfield Clinical Commissioning Group; Defendant: Haringey Clinical Commissioning Group; Defendant: Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust; Defendant: Secretary of State for Health
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission/rolled Up Hearing and Substantive Determination
Outcome
Permission refused and claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Legitimate Expectation, Consultation Requirements, Health Service Reconfiguration
Administrative Law Health Law Public Law Judicial Review Legitimate Expectation Consultation Requirements Health Service Reconfiguration

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

Defendant

Enfield Clinical Commissioning Group

Defendant

Haringey Clinical Commissioning Group

Defendant

Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust

Defendant

Secretary of State for Health

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission/rolled Up Hearing and Substantive Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether closure of Chase Farm Hospital 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 constituted a substantial variation requiring further consultation

Ratio Decidendi

There was no clear, unambiguous precondition or promise that all primary care improvements would precede closure; the only conditions were sufficient A&E capacity and ability of primary care to accommodate patient flows, which the CCGs were satisfied had been met. No legitimate expectation or requirement for further consultation arose. The claim disclosed no arguable ground for judicial review.

Court Disposition

Permission refused and claim dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to apply for judicial review refused
  • Claim dismissed