Oyeyi-Effiong & Anor, R (on the application of) v The Bridge NDC Seven Sisters Partnership & Anor

A public decision-making body exercising disciplinary powers must give the affected person sufficient particulars of the allegations, explain the procedure to be followed, and provide a fair opportunity to answer the case, call relevant evidence and seek an adjournment where necessary. The body must investigate the substance of the allegations rather than assume that they are established because the person does not engage with a procedurally defective process. A disciplinary code may permit permanent removal from office where its language and context support that construction, but a lawful sanction cannot stand if the process leading to it was unfair.

The claimants were elected members of the Bridge NDC Seven Sisters Partnership Board. The Board resolved to remove them permanently from the Board, its sub-bodies and its offices following complaints about their conduct at meetings and allegations that they had orchestrated complaints intended to undermine the Association.

The claimants sought judicial review. Permission had initially been refused, but the Court of Appeal granted permission on limited grounds and remitted the matter to the Administrative Court. The Board conceded that the challenged removal decisions were amenable to judicial review. The central issues were whether the Board had used a procedurally fair process and whether the Code of Conduct authorised permanent removal.

The claim succeeded. The court quashed the decisions that the claimants had breached the Code of Conduct and that they should be removed permanently from the Board, its sub-bodies and its offices. A declaration was also made that the purported removal did not prevent future consideration of the claimants for Board membership, subject to possible restoration concerning unresolved issues.

1. Amenability. The Board’s concession that the decisions were amenable to judicial review was accepted. The court declined to determine whether other decisions of the Association or NDC partnerships would necessarily be reviewable, having regard to the Association’s public role and public funding under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.
2. Fair notice and procedure. The claimants had received adequate information about their conduct at one meeting, but not about alleged misconduct at other meetings or the alleged orchestration of complaints to undermine the Association. They were also not given a sufficiently clear explanation of how the complaints would be investigated, whether complainants would attend, whether questioning would be permitted, or how unavailable defence witnesses would be dealt with. In a matter potentially resulting in removal of elected members, fairness required those matters to be addressed and communicated in advance.
3. Adjournment and fact-finding. The Board failed properly to consider the request for an adjournment. It had only notified the claimants shortly before the meeting that they could call witnesses. More fundamentally, the minutes suggested that the Board did not determine whether the allegations were proved, but proceeded on the assumption that they were established when the claimants declined to question complainants. The Board remained under a duty to investigate the facts.
4. Sanction. Properly construed, the Code of Conduct gave the Board power to remove a member permanently. Membership of the Board could constitute an office or position, and the Code expressly contemplated removal from the Board for serious or persistent disruption or offence. Permanent removal was not, in itself, unreasonable in public law terms. The defect lay in the process by which the breach was found, which invalidated the sanction.

The parties were given 14 days to agree costs, failing which the issue would be determined on written representations. The parties had liberty to restore the claim on questions concerning any future reconsideration of the allegations.

• Court of Appeal: Permission to appeal the refusal of permission for judicial review was granted on limited grounds. The claimants were then granted permission to proceed with judicial review under rule 52.15(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, and the matter was remitted to the Administrative Court.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The removal decisions were quashed and declaratory relief was granted.