The Underwritten Warranty Company Ltd (t/a the Insurance Backed Guarantee Company) & Anor, R (on the application of) v Fensa Ltd & Ors [2017] EWHC 2308 (Admin) (15 September 2017)

The Underwritten Warranty Company Ltd (t/a the Insurance Backed Guarantee Company) & Anor, R (on the application of) v Fensa Ltd & Ors [2017] EWHC 2308 (Admin) (15 September 2017)

The court held that FENSA's decision to remove the claimants from its list of approved IBG providers was not amenable to judicial review. The decision was fundamentally contractual and did not involve the exercise of public law functions or governmental interest. The regulatory context did not convert FENSA's actions into public law decisions. Accordingly, the claim was dismissed.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2308 (Admin)
Parties
First Claimant: The Underwritten Warranty Company Limited t/a The Insurance Backed Guarantee Company; Second Claimant: The Double Glazing & Conservatory Quality Assurance Ombudsman Scheme; Defendant: FENSA LTD; First Interested Party: Network VEKA LTD; Second Interested Party: Price Bailey Insurance PCC LTD t/a Safeworld Insurance Group; Third Interested Party: The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Fourth Interested Party: United Kingdom Accreditation Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Competent Person Schemes, Building Regulations, Procedural Fairness, Irrationality, Legitimate Expectation
Administrative Law Regulatory Law Contract Law Judicial Review Competent Person Schemes Building Regulations Procedural Fairness Irrationality +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Underwritten Warranty Company Limited t/a The Insurance Backed Guarantee Company

First Claimant

The Double Glazing & Conservatory Quality Assurance Ombudsman Scheme

Second Claimant

FENSA LTD

Defendant

Network VEKA LTD

First Interested Party

Price Bailey Insurance PCC LTD t/a Safeworld Insurance Group

Second Interested Party

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Third Interested Party

United Kingdom Accreditation Service

Fourth Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether FENSA's decision to remove the claimants from its list of approved IBG providers is amenable to judicial review
  2. 2 Whether FENSA's decision was unlawful due to failure to make reasonable enquiries
  3. 3 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the decision-making process

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that FENSA's decision to remove the claimants from its list of approved IBG providers was not amenable to judicial review. The decision was fundamentally contractual and did not involve the exercise of public law functions or governmental interest. The regulatory context did not convert FENSA's actions into public law decisions. Accordingly, the claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed