Greenwich Community Law Centre, R (On the Application Of) v Greenwich London Borough Council

A public authority’s decision to withdraw funding is unlawful only if it crosses the high threshold of irrationality. A funding body may organise a competitive commissioning process which results in the cessation of an existing provider’s funding, provided relevant consequences are considered and the stated selection criteria are applied rationally.

The public sector equality duty does not require a formal equality impact assessment before every decision. Due regard may be demonstrated through an earlier assessment and a tender process in which equality, accessibility and service reach are integral criteria. In assessing a late tender, fault by the authority is relevant but not decisive; the authority may also consider the clarity of the documents and the need for equal treatment of timely bidders.

Greenwich Community Law Centre challenged Greenwich London Borough Council’s decision to cease funding its legal advice services and to allocate funding to other providers. It alleged irrationality in the timetable and transition arrangements, failure to consider risks to existing clients, breach of the public sector equality duty, failure to consider clients’ Article 6 rights, irrational evaluation of its employment and immigration bid, and unlawful rejection of its housing and welfare benefits bid as late.

The Council relied on budgetary reductions, a revised modular commissioning model, the evaluation criteria, and the availability of replacement and transitional arrangements. The central issues were whether the Council had acted irrationally, failed to take relevant considerations into account, breached its equality duty, or acted unlawfully in evaluating and rejecting the bids.

1. Claim dismissed. The Council’s decisions contained no reviewable legal error.
2. The irrationality challenge to the timetable failed. Greenwich Community Law Centre had known for months that its existing funding would end, had undertaken under the interim agreement to prepare robust transition plans, and had been offered assistance with transferring existing clients. The National and Greenwich Compacts did not require a three-month transition period. The National Compact concerned notice of ending a funding relationship, and the claimant had received substantially longer advance warning of the end of its existing funding arrangement.
3. The alleged failure to conduct a separate risk assessment did not establish a failure to consider relevant matters. The effect on existing clients had been before the Council. The claimant could not use those consequences to alter the competitive selection criteria after the event.
4. Under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, the Council had to have due regard to the statutory equality needs. Formal equality impact assessment was not required before every decision. The March assessment, together with the tender process’s express focus on equalities, location and service reach, demonstrated due regard. Accessibility was considered in the evaluation, and the successful bids contained more developed outreach proposals.
5. The reliance on clients’ Article 6 rights added nothing. The alleged consequences had been considered, and there was no evidence that clients had been disadvantaged or unable to transfer to the replacement providers.
6. The employment and immigration evaluation was not irrational or manifestly erroneous. The final bid was sent at the last minute in several versions, and the evidence showed that the omitted material would not have altered the substantial scoring gap. The Council had rational grounds for preferring Plumstead Community Law Centre’s bid.
7. In relation to the late housing and welfare benefits bid, Leadbitter v Devon County Council [2009] EWHC 930 and Azam v Legal Services Commission [2010] EWCA Civ 1194 showed that fault by the procuring authority was relevant but did not compel acceptance of a late tender. The applicable test was irrationality or, if the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 applied, manifest error. The Council was entitled to conclude that the tender documentation, read as a whole, identified 1 August as the deadline and that equal treatment of timely bidders outweighed the typographical error.