Trail Riders Fellowship v Hampshire County Council

Trail Riders Fellowship v Hampshire County Council

The Council's decision to make the traffic regulation order was for one or more statutory purposes under section 1(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the section 122 duty was fulfilled in substance, the Statement of Reasons was adequate, consultation was fair, all relevant representations were considered, and the rejection of a permit system was not irrational. None of the grounds for challenge were made out.

Parties
Claimant: Trail Riders Fellowship; Defendant: Hampshire County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Traffic Regulation Orders, Statutory Interpretation, Procedural Fairness, Consultation Requirements, Judicial Review Grounds
Administrative Law Local Government Law Road Traffic Law Traffic Regulation Orders Statutory Interpretation Procedural Fairness Consultation Requirements Judicial Review Grounds

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trail Riders Fellowship

Claimant

Hampshire County Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council identified and acted for a statutory purpose under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
  2. 2 Whether the Council complied with section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
  3. 3 Whether the Statement of Reasons was adequate and consultation fair

Ratio Decidendi

The Council's decision to make the traffic regulation order was for one or more statutory purposes under section 1(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the section 122 duty was fulfilled in substance, the Statement of Reasons was adequate, consultation was fair, all relevant representations were considered, and the rejection of a permit system was not irrational. None of the grounds for challenge were made out.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed