Local government Alteration of area. Court of Appeal, Civil Division: Where the defendant Boundary Committee had consulted on proposals on unitary local government, whilst it had erred in consulting upon a single proposal, and part of its consultation had not been adequate, the errors had not been so fundamental that the defendant had to start the process over again.
Document ID:
30396469673235306D6172
Asociated Links:
a:2:{s:5:"title";s:14:"Find Judgments";s:12:"remoteLinkId";s:194:"LNECE2C1A13BBD83251AC63F6E076B9D4B1FD83B1FD70694EBFB64F27A5E1BB11E1D6C795248A97B72FBE281A600E6B3815F2E7CE708C062EED802648DF03F944ABC5223706E239C9FAC1C2064727DAAF56A4213D1570780FDB8BFC63264C762C0";}
a:2:{s:5:"title";s:23:"Find Related Commentary";s:12:"remoteLinkId";s:226:"LNECE2C1A13BBD83251AC63F6E076B9D4BBB5CEF9D9DF6D18CD4898C0C86C3E3B944F3631D432E93B7DC71A93E51592815D53EF136C25E2FB5D85447133C6FB49C37AAAFA3E8C56FB770300D6D18F58F396ED74023FC1617D6D7F4854F8FCD86F96BD4074C29A8E61CB6CC7FA9D5C8FDA5";}
a:2:{s:5:"title";s:18:"Find AllER Reports";s:12:"remoteLinkId";s:210:"LNECE2C1A13BBD832502BBCDE46D29B7B37A02E495142796E39D1489AF0D235221FA3538B6AEED2AC5117D90C68F161A6721EC7DC6EF85CCAB8A910242FE09C71D3B0541DCA1773C1BC9FFC85A634BBB7AA9FD51C42797E438E7EE74DA2A720532D7B0F12C6BE7A7B5";}
a:2:{s:5:"title";s:18:"Find Related Cases";s:12:"remoteLinkId";s:226:"LNECE2C1A13BBD83251AC63F6E076B9D4BBB5CEF9D9DF6D18CD4898C0C86C3E3B944F3631D432E93B7DC71A93E51592815D53EF136C25E2FB527B0AA47EC1881CC364FA7BD66A85FF61E8D3EA568E638C9DB48280B86688B39A0D3134EAEE735CD8D885F77E5305AC8163A565642324EBE";}
Language:
en
Country:
GB
Topic Code:
#LL000A5KM#
#LL0008XOQ#
#LL00092VF#
#LL00093A3#
#LL00092W8#
#LL000DFYX#
#LL0008XOU#
#LL0008XPM#
#GB#PINT#
#PA#PBS#
#GB#CONT#
#GB#CIVP#
Indexing Terms:
Structure of Local Government
Civil Procedure & Administration of Justice
Litigation Procedure & Practice
Areas & Authorities
Elections
PSL - Public Law UK Caselaw
Constitutional Law
Local Government
Source Name:
All England Reporter
Jurisdiction:
EnglandandWales
Court:
0
Court Code:
CACivD
Judgement Date:
Wed, 2009-03-25
Court Classify:
Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Cite:
[2009] All ER (D) 250 (Mar)
Case Name:
*R (on the application of Breckland District Council and others) v Boundary Committee R (on the application of East Devon District Council) v Boundary Committee for England
Judge:
Sir Anthony May P, Dyson and Richards LJJ
Prosecution Counsel:
Timothy Straker QC and Andrew Sharland (instructed by Knights Solicitors) for the Breckland District Council.
Defendent Counsel:
Andrew Arden QC and Jonathan Manning (instructed by Lee Manning) for East Devon District Council.
Catch Words:
Local government
Alteration of area
Proposal
Consultation
Defendant Boundary Committee consulting on unitary local government
Defendant consulting on one draft alternative proposal
Claimants applying for judicial review
Judge finding in claimants' cases that consultation could proceed in stages and that consideration of affordability could be deferred
Whether requirement for public consultation
Whether judge erring
.
Parent nid:
March
Availability:
Locked
Top content:
No
Representation:
Timothy Straker QC and Andrew Sharland (instructed by Knights Solicitors) for the Breckland District Council.
Andrew Arden QC and Jonathan Manning (instructed by Lee Manning) for East Devon District Council.
Michael Beloff QC, Gerard Clarke and Anna Burne (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the defendant.
James Eadie QC and Catherine Callaghan (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State appearing as an interested party.
James Goudie QC and Peter Oldham (instructed by Roger Gash) for Devon County Council appearing as an interested party.
Neutral Cite:
[2009] EWCA Civ 239