Fingle Glen Junction Business & Community Action Group, R (on the application of) v The Highways Agency

Fingle Glen Junction Business & Community Action Group, R (on the application of) v The Highways Agency

The court held that even if there was a legitimate expectation of consultation, it was not breached in practice, as objectors had ample opportunity to make their views known before the order was made. Any breach would have been objectively justified as a proportionate response to the urgent road safety concerns and...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Fingle Glen Junction Business and Community Action Group; Defendant: The Highways Agency
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Legitimate Expectation, Consultation Requirements, Temporary Traffic Regulation Orders, Proportionality, Costs in Judicial Review
Administrative Law Public Law Legitimate Expectation Consultation Requirements Temporary Traffic Regulation Orders Proportionality 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fingle Glen Junction Business and Community Action Group

Claimant

The Highways Agency

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was required to consult before making a temporary traffic regulation order under section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
  2. 2 Whether the claimant had a legitimate expectation of consultation based on past practice
  3. 3 Whether any breach of legitimate expectation was objectively justified as a proportionate measure

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that even if there was a legitimate expectation of consultation, it was not breached in practice, as objectors had ample opportunity to make their views known before the order was made. Any breach would have been objectively justified as a proportionate response to the urgent road safety concerns and lack of funding for alternative schemes. The application was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • Claimant to pay defendant's costs, subject to detailed assessment