Buckingham, R (On the Application Of) v NHS Corby Clinical Commissioning Group

Buckingham, R (On the Application Of) v NHS Corby Clinical Commissioning Group

The Defendant breached the legitimate expectation of consultation, failed to involve individuals in the consideration of the proposal as required by section 14Z2 of the NHS Act 2006, and did not comply with equality duties under section 14T of the NHS Act 2006 and section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. There was no objectively verifiable error of fact sufficient to vitiate the decision, and conflicts of interest were adequately managed. Relief should not be refused as consultation can be achieved in time and may materially affect the outcome.

Parties
Claimant: Lyn Buckingham; Defendant: NHS Corby Clinical Commissioning Group; Interested Party: Lakeside+ Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Decision quashed; judicial review granted.
Legal Topics
Legitimate Expectation, Public Consultation, Public Sector Equality Duty, Commissioning Plans, Conflict of Interest
Administrative Law Health Law Equality Law Legitimate Expectation Public Consultation Public Sector Equality Duty Commissioning Plans Conflict of Interest

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

Parties

Lyn Buckingham

Claimant

NHS Corby Clinical Commissioning Group

Defendant

Lakeside+ Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant breached legitimate expectation by failing to consult before changing health service provision.
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant breached statutory duties under section 14Z2 and 14T of the National Health Service Act 2006 and section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
  3. 3 Whether material errors of fact or conflicts of interest vitiated the decision.

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant breached the legitimate expectation of consultation, failed to involve individuals in the consideration of the proposal as required by section 14Z2 of the NHS Act 2006, and did not comply with equality duties under section 14T of the NHS Act 2006 and section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. There was no objectively verifiable error of fact sufficient to vitiate the decision, and conflicts of interest were adequately managed. Relief should not be refused as consultation can be achieved in time and may materially affect the outcome.

Court Disposition

Decision quashed; judicial review granted.

Orders

  • The Decision of 30 January 2018 is quashed.
  • The Defendant must conduct an appropriate consultation exercise on the proposal.