Halton Borough Council, R (on the application of) v Road User Charging Adjudicators

Halton Borough Council, R (on the application of) v Road User Charging Adjudicators

The Court held that procedural impropriety under Regulation 8(3)(g) includes failures occurring after representations are filed, and Regulation 8(3)(e) provides an alternative ground for appeal when Regulation 8(10) applies. However, delegation of the Regulation 8(9) duty to Emovis was lawful under Article 43 of the 2011 Bridge Order, and the rigid application of Business Rules did not constitute unlawful fettering or procedural impropriety. The misleading costs information in Notices of Rejection, while deficient, did not amount to procedural impropriety under the Regulations.

Parties
Claimant: Halton Borough Council; Defendant: Road User Charging Adjudicators; Interested Party: Damian Curzon
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; Joint Determination and Review Decision quashed in Cases 2-11; no quashing in Case 1; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Delegation of Statutory Functions, Fettering of Discretion, Procedural Impropriety, Penalty Charge Enforcement, Judicial Review of Tribunal Decisions
Administrative Law Local Government Law Transport Law Delegation of Statutory Functions Fettering of Discretion Procedural Impropriety Penalty Charge Enforcement Judicial Review of Tribunal Decisions

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Halton Borough Council

Claimant

Road User Charging Adjudicators

Defendant

Damian Curzon

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delegation of Regulation 8(9) duty to consider representations to a third-party contractor constitutes procedural impropriety
  2. 2 Whether rigid application of Business Rules amounts to unlawful fettering and procedural impropriety
  3. 3 Whether misleading costs information in Notices of Rejection constitutes procedural impropriety

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that procedural impropriety under Regulation 8(3)(g) includes failures occurring after representations are filed, and Regulation 8(3)(e) provides an alternative ground for appeal when Regulation 8(10) applies. However, delegation of the Regulation 8(9) duty to Emovis was lawful under Article 43 of the 2011 Bridge Order, and the rigid application of Business Rules did not constitute unlawful fettering or procedural impropriety. The misleading costs information in Notices of Rejection, while deficient, did not amount to procedural impropriety under the Regulations.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; Joint Determination and Review Decision quashed in Cases 2-11; no quashing in Case 1; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Joint Determination and Review Decision quashed in Cases 2-11
  • No quashing order in Case 1