Harris & Anor, R (on the application of) v Broads Authority

Harris & Anor, R (on the application of) v Broads Authority

The Broads Authority acted lawfully in adopting the 'Broads National Park' brand for marketing purposes; the branding did not mislead the public as to statutory functions or the applicability of the Sandford Principle, was not ultra vires, and the consultation process was fair. No abuse of power or procedural unfairness occurred.

Parties
Claimant: Timothy Charles Harris; Claimant: Mrs. Angelika Harris; Defendant: Broads Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Statutory Interpretation, Branding of Public Bodies, Consultation Requirements, Ultra Vires, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Environmental Law Local Government Law Judicial Review Statutory Interpretation Branding of Public Bodies Consultation Requirements Ultra Vires +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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Timothy Charles Harris

Claimant

Mrs. Angelika Harris

Claimant

Broads Authority

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Broads Authority acted ultra vires in adopting the 'Broads National Park' brand for marketing purposes
  2. 2 Whether the branding decision was misleading as to statutory functions and the applicability of the Sandford Principle
  3. 3 Whether the Authority had regard to immaterial considerations (Habitats Regulations)

Ratio Decidendi

The Broads Authority acted lawfully in adopting the 'Broads National Park' brand for marketing purposes; the branding did not mislead the public as to statutory functions or the applicability of the Sandford Principle, was not ultra vires, and the consultation process was fair. No abuse of power or procedural unfairness occurred.

Court Disposition

Claim for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • Claimants to pay costs capped at £5,000 each, total £10,000, as per Aarhus claim and Singh J's order.
  • Permission to appeal refused.