Carruthers & Anor v South Norfolk District Council & Ors [2006] EWHC 478 (Admin) (16 March 2006)

The Council's decisions regarding disclosure were reasonable and lawful under the relevant statutes, and the claimants should pursue alternative remedies under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 rather than judicial review.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2006] EWHC 478 (Admin)
Parties: Claimant: Stuart Hardwicke Carruthers; Claimant: Jane Alison Brodie Carruthers; Defendant: South Norfolk District Council
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 16 March 2006
Procedural Posture: Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission
Outcome: Application dismissed
Legal Topics: Disclosure of Documents, Audit Commission Act 1998, Freedom of Information Act 2000, Costs in Judicial Review

Administrative Law Freedom of Information Disclosure of Documents Audit Commission Act 1998 Freedom of Information Act 2000 Costs in Judicial Review

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Stuart Hardwicke Carruthers

Claimant

Jane Alison Brodie Carruthers

Claimant

South Norfolk District Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission

Legal Issues

1 Whether the Council's refusal to disclose certain documents was lawful under the Audit Commission Act 1998 and Freedom of Information Act 2000
2 Whether judicial review is appropriate given alternative remedies

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

Claimants to pay costs of £3460 for filing the Acknowledgment of Service and appearance at Court.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.