Lock, R (on the application of) v Leicester City Council

A local authority must distinguish between the contractual office of chief executive and the statutory designation of an officer as head of paid service. Where the full council itself decides to dismiss the designated officer, paragraph 4 of Part I of Schedule 1 to the Local Authorities (Standing Orders)(England) Regulations 2001 is not engaged; the relevant statutory procedure must nevertheless be followed before notice is given. An imperfect dismissal letter is construed reasonably and in context. A decision remains lawful where the full council makes the operative decision after giving the officer a fair opportunity to make representations. Improper disclosure of medical information, although unacceptable, does not necessarily invalidate the dismissal process or establish a breach of article 8.

The claimant was Leicester City Council’s contractual chief executive and the officer designated as head of paid service under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Following the election of a directly elected mayor, the council proposed to abolish the post of chief executive. An Employees’ Committee supported the proposal, and a letter purported to give notice of redundancy subject to full council approval.

The full council subsequently considered the claimant’s representations and appeal, resolved to abolish the post, approved her dismissal and appointed a temporary head of paid service. The claimant sought judicial review, alleging breach of the statutory dismissal procedure, unfairness, apparent bias, failure to consider relevant matters, irrationality and breaches of articles 6 and 8 of the ECHR.

1. Claim dismissed. The claimant’s contractual employment as chief executive was distinct from her statutory status as the officer designated as head of paid service. The judicial review concerned the public-law office, while employment-law claims remained available before the Employment Tribunal.
2. Under section 4(1)(a) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, the authority had to designate an officer as head of paid service. The statutory functions could not be abolished merely because the contractual chief executive post was deleted. If the same person occupied both positions, the dismissal process had to address the statutory office as well.
3. Paragraph 4(1) of Part I of Schedule 1 to the Local Authorities (Standing Orders)(England) Regulations 2001 applies where a committee, sub-committee or officer is discharging the dismissal function on behalf of the authority. The Employees’ Committee had considered deletion of the contractual post but had not dismissed the claimant from the statutory office. The operative decision was made by the full council, so paragraph 4(1) was not engaged. There was no sufficient basis for concluding that paragraph 6 had not been complied with.
4. The letter of 8 July 2011 was poorly drafted and wrongly headed as a notice of redundancy, but it had to be read reasonably, in context and with knowledge of the surrounding process. It conveyed that the full council retained the final decision and that the claimant could make representations and appeal. The full council subsequently considered the matter at length and made the necessary decisions.
5. The mayor and Councillor Palmer had predetermined aspects of the proposal but properly withdrew from the full council’s debate and vote. The claimant and her advisers had ample opportunity to make representations, and the council carefully considered them. The article 6 and relevant-consideration grounds therefore failed.
6. The disclosure of the claimant’s medical condition to the media should not have occurred. It did not, however, vitiate the dismissal process or establish that the decision was irrational or unlawfully interfered with her article 8 rights.