LH & CM, R (on the application of) v Shropshire Council

The claimants sought judicial review of Shropshire Council's decision-making and consultation concerning the closure of Hartley's Day Centre and the council's wider approach to consulting on potential future closures of day centres. The court considered two issues: whether the consultation was legally adequate and whether the council complied with its Public Sector Equality Duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

The judge granted permission for the first claimant but refused permission in respect of the second claimant as premature. On the merits the court proceeded on the defendant's factual account where there was no reason to doubt it. The court applied established principles that, in the absence of a statutory duty to consult, the scope and extent of consultation are largely a matter for the public authority subject to rationality and fairness. Having reviewed the consultation materials and feedback and the equality impact assessment, the court held the consultation was sufficiently wide and that there was no legitimate expectation of further, individual consultation about each centre. The equality impact assessment was found adequate and the council had regard to the matters in section 149. The claim for judicial review was dismissed.

Background and parties: This was a rolled up judicial review hearing. The claimants, adults with learning disabilities, challenged Shropshire Council's decision to close Hartley's Day Centre and the council's wider refusal to consult users of other centres about possible future closures. The first claimant (aged 63) attended Hartley's; the second claimant (aged 43) attended a different centre (Church Stretton). The application was litigated with prior interim applications and a consent undertaking not to close Hartley's pending the hearing.

Nature of the claim and relief sought: The claimants sought judicial review relief contending (i) the form and extent of consultation was unlawful because it did not invite representations on the closure of specific centres, and (ii) the council failed to comply with its Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, relying in part on an equality impact assessment.

Procedural posture: Permission for judicial review was granted in respect of the first claimant (promptness satisfied). Permission in respect of the second claimant was refused as premature because no decision had been taken to close the centre she attended.

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether the consultation adopted by the council was so narrow or inadequate that it was unlawful (including whether consultees should have been consulted about closure of specific centres and the timing of such closures).
• Whether the council complied with its PSED obligations and whether the equality impact assessment was adequate.

Court's reasoning and conclusions: The court accepted the defendant's factual account where unsupported factual disputes existed. The judge adopted the view that, absent a statutory duty to consult, the council had latitude as to the nature and extent of consultation, subject to rationality and fairness. The consultation was directed at reconfiguration of day services rather than total withdrawal of services. The evidence (including PowerPoint materials and contemporaneous feedback from 2011–2012 consultation events) demonstrated consultees were aware that some centres might close and that their views had been taken into account. There was no express representation giving rise to a legitimate expectation of individual consultation on each centre. The equality impact assessment completed on 24 July 2013 was examined against the council's documented two-stage process and found to be evidence-based and adequate for the reconfiguration decision; Bracking was identified as defining the PSED framework. On those bases the court dismissed the claim for judicial review.

Wider context: The judge noted the distinction between decisions involving reconfiguration and those involving withdrawal of services and emphasised practical realities in assessing procedural fairness, observing consultations in health and social care should avoid being overly technical or legalistic.

This is a first instance judgment. The claim for judicial review is dismissed. The judge concluded the council's county-wide consultation on reconfiguring day services was lawful and adequate, there was no legitimate expectation of further individual consultation about each centre, and the council complied with its duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. Permission was refused for the second claimant as the challenge was premature.