Partingdale Lane Residents' Association, R (on the application of) v Barnet London Borough Council

Partingdale Lane Residents' Association, R (on the application of) v Barnet London Borough Council

The Orders were quashed because Councillor Coleman, the relevant decision-maker, had predetermined the issue of principle regarding the re-opening of Partingdale Lane before consultation took place, thereby rendering the consultation process unlawful as it was not conducted with an open mind at a formative stage. Subsequent steps did not cure this defect, and the process failed to meet the requirements of lawful and fair consultation under public law.

Parties
Claimant: The Queen on the application of the Partingdale Lane Residents' Association; Defendant: Barnet London Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application allowed; Orders quashed
Legal Topics
Predetermination, Consultation Requirements, Traffic Regulation Orders, Delegation of Powers, Natural Justice
Administrative Law Local Government Law Public Law Predetermination Consultation Requirements Traffic Regulation Orders Delegation of Powers Natural Justice

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen on the application of the Partingdale Lane Residents' Association

Claimant

Barnet London Borough Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant failed to comply with its own arrangements for making traffic schemes
  2. 2 Whether the defendant failed to follow or have regard to its own policy on reducing rat running and improving road safety
  3. 3 Whether the defendant failed to engage in fair and adequate consultation

Ratio Decidendi

The Orders were quashed because Councillor Coleman, the relevant decision-maker, had predetermined the issue of principle regarding the re-opening of Partingdale Lane before consultation took place, thereby rendering the consultation process unlawful as it was not conducted with an open mind at a formative stage. Subsequent steps did not cure this defect, and the process failed to meet the requirements of lawful and fair consultation under public law.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; Orders quashed

Orders

  • The three traffic orders are quashed.
  • The defendant is to pay the claimant's costs, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.