Gill, R (On the Application Of) v Cabinet Office [No.3]

Gill, R (On the Application Of) v Cabinet Office [No.3]

The ONS did not indicate that it would apply the 'public acceptability' criterion for topics to the assessment of tick-box response options. Instead, it consistently applied its published and updated prioritisation tool, and any changes to that tool were minor and did not disadvantage the Claimant. The ONS's approach was not inconsistent or irrational, and reliance on the Kantar Report was not unlawful. No grounds of challenge were made out.

Parties
Claimant: Amrik Singh Gill; Defendant: Cabinet Office
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Policy Application, Census Legislation, Legitimate Expectation, Consultation Requirements
Administrative Law Public Law Judicial Review Policy Application Census Legislation Legitimate Expectation Consultation Requirements

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amrik Singh Gill

Claimant

Cabinet Office

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ONS failed to apply its published 'public acceptability' criterion to the assessment of a Sikh ethnic group tick-box in the 2021 Census
  2. 2 Whether the ONS unlawfully applied an unpublished or materially different policy in evaluating tick-box options
  3. 3 Whether the ONS applied evaluation criteria inconsistently across census topics and response options

Ratio Decidendi

The ONS did not indicate that it would apply the 'public acceptability' criterion for topics to the assessment of tick-box response options. Instead, it consistently applied its published and updated prioritisation tool, and any changes to that tool were minor and did not disadvantage the Claimant. The ONS's approach was not inconsistent or irrational, and reliance on the Kantar Report was not unlawful. No grounds of challenge were made out.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed