Poole & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Birmingham City Council

Poole & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Birmingham City Council

The Innovative Products Criterion is not unlawful under the Provision of Services Regulations 2009 or the Services Directive. It is justified by legitimate public interest objectives, is proportionate, does not constitute a prohibited economic test, does not involve competitors in the decision-making process, and is sufficiently clear and objective. The general conditions of the policy are within the statutory powers and purposes of the 1982 Act.

Parties
Claimant: Allan John Poole; Claimant: Samantha Poole; Defendant: Birmingham City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Street Trading Regulation, Provision of Services Regulations 2009, Services Directive 2006/123/ec, Judicial Review, Proportionality, Public Interest Justification
Administrative Law Local Government Law EU Law Street Trading Regulation Provision of Services Regulations 2009 Services Directive 2006/123/ec Judicial Review Proportionality +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Allan John Poole

Claimant

Samantha Poole

Claimant

Birmingham City Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 'Innovative Products Criterion' (IPC) in Birmingham City Council's Street Trading Policy 2020 is unlawful under the Provision of Services Regulations 2009 and the Services Directive 2006/123/EC.
  2. 2 Whether the IPC constitutes an unjustified or disproportionate restriction on service provision.
  3. 3 Whether the IPC amounts to a prohibited economic test or involves competitors in the decision-making process contrary to Regulation 21.

Ratio Decidendi

The Innovative Products Criterion is not unlawful under the Provision of Services Regulations 2009 or the Services Directive. It is justified by legitimate public interest objectives, is proportionate, does not constitute a prohibited economic test, does not involve competitors in the decision-making process, and is sufficiently clear and objective. The general conditions of the policy are within the statutory powers and purposes of the 1982 Act.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed