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

The claimant, a long-established law centre, sought judicial review of the defendant council's decision to cease funding it after a re-commissioning exercise and to award modular grants to other providers. The principal legal issues were whether the council acted irrationally in the timetable and award of grants, whether it failed to take into account relevant considerations (including risks to ongoing client litigation), and whether it breached its public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. The court held that (i) the council had given more than adequate notice in the context of the budgetary constraints and the interim funding agreement which required contingency planning; (ii) the council was not obliged to prefer continuation of grant funding on the ground of disruption to existing clients and had properly followed its selection criteria in preferring other bids; and (iii) the council had in substance had due regard to its equality duties, having conducted an equality impact assessment in March 2011 and having integrated equality considerations into the tendering criteria. The court also rejected challenges relating to late submission of a bid and alleged procedural errors in scoring, finding no irrationality or manifest error.

The claimant, Greenwich Community Law Centre (Greenwich CLC), provided free legal advice on immigration, welfare benefits, housing, employment and debt. It challenged the council's decision to end its funding with effect from 11 November 2011 following a re-commissioning process, and the award of modular grants to other providers (notably Plumstead CLC and Greenwich Housing Rights). Permission to apply for judicial review had been granted and interim relief was refused at an earlier hearing.

Nature of the claim and relief sought: judicial review of the council's funding decision; relief sought included quashing the decision and interim relief to prevent implementation.

Procedural posture: first instance Administrative Court (Mr Justice Cranston). Permission had been granted by a deputy High Court judge; the instant hearing followed the council's implementation of its decisions and the transfer of services.

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether the commissioning timetable and short transition period were irrational;
• Whether the council failed to take a relevant consideration by not undertaking a risk assessment of the effect on ongoing client litigation;
• Whether the council complied with its public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010;
• Whether there were procedural defects in the evaluation of bids, including acceptance or rejection of late or amended bids.

Court’s reasoning and conclusions: The court analysed the factual background, including the council's budgetary constraints following central government cuts, the March 2011 equality impact assessment, the six-month interim agreement requiring contingency plans, and the particulars of the tendering process. On the timetable and transition point the court concluded that Greenwich CLC had had extended notice of potential cessation of funding and contractual obligations to plan for transition; accordingly there was no irrationality. On the alleged failure to assess risks to ongoing client cases, the court held that the council was entitled to apply the selection criteria and was not required to prioritise continuity of existing casework over the objective evaluation of bids. With respect to equality duties, the court held that the March 2011 equality impact assessment and the integration of equality criteria into the tendering process satisfied the substantive requirement of due regard under section 149; no further formal assessment was required. Procedural complaints about evaluation and late submission were rejected: the claimant had in several respects failed to follow tender instructions (including providing hard copies) and the council’s decisions were within the margin of discretion or not manifestly irrational. The court declined to find any reviewable error and dismissed the claim.

The claim is dismissed. The court concluded that the defendant council acted lawfully: the commissioning timetable and transition arrangements were not irrational; there was no unlawful failure to take relevant considerations into account (including any duty to protect clients' ongoing litigation); the council complied in substance with the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010; and the procedural challenges to bid evaluation and deadline decisions did not demonstrate manifest error or irrationality.