Morris & Anor, R (on the application of) v Rhondda Cynon TAF County Borough Council [2015] EWCA Civ 905 (23 June 2015)

Morris & Anor, R (on the application of) v Rhondda Cynon TAF County Borough Council [2015] EWCA Civ 905 (23 June 2015)

The Council's approach to its statutory duty under section 22 was sufficient given the open-textured nature of the duty and subsequent vindication of its estimates; the consultation process was adequate and alternatives were properly put to the public; misleading information regarding transport was corrected and did not justify reconsideration of the Council's decision-making.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 905
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Angharad Morris; Appellant/claimant: Donna Thomas; Respondent/defendant: Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Statutory Interpretation, Consultation Duty, Childcare Provision, Public Funding, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Education Law Local Government Law Statutory Interpretation Consultation Duty Childcare Provision Public Funding Procedural Fairness

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Angharad Morris

Appellant/claimant

Donna Thomas

Appellant/claimant

Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Interpretation of section 22 Childcare Act 2006 and sufficiency of childcare provision
  2. 2 Duty of consultation regarding alternatives under Moseley v Haringey LBC
  3. 3 Misleading information regarding withdrawal of free transport

Ratio Decidendi

The Council's approach to its statutory duty under section 22 was sufficient given the open-textured nature of the duty and subsequent vindication of its estimates; the consultation process was adequate and alternatives were properly put to the public; misleading information regarding transport was corrected and did not justify reconsideration of the Council's decision-making.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal refused