Chancepixies Animal Welfare, R (On the Application Of) v North Kesteven District Council

Where an interested party may oppose a proposed consent order in judicial review proceedings, the court should give it a proper opportunity to participate before making the order, even if it has not previously participated formally or attended the hearing.

The court may require the interested party to serve a properly verified statement of its position and attend the adjourned hearing. If it fails to comply, the court may proceed on the basis that it consents to the proposed order.

The claimant sought judicial review of two dog-breeding licences granted by North Kesteven District Council to Swindells Livestock Limited. Permission had been granted in relation to the first licence because it appeared to have been backdated, and the Council accepted that both licences should be quashed.

The claimant and the Council proposed a consent order. Swindells Livestock Limited, the interested party, objected by letter but had not formally participated or attended the hearing. The central issue was whether the court should make the agreed quashing order immediately or give the interested party an opportunity to oppose it properly.

1. Adjournment. The court adjourned the hearing for approximately 14 days and made no order on the proposed consent order at that stage.
2. Opportunity to participate. Although the interested party had not formally participated and had not attended, it would be wrong simply to ignore its letter and make the order agreed between the claimant and the Council. It had to be given an opportunity to participate properly before the court determined whether the licences should be quashed.
3. Conditions of opposition. If the interested party wished to oppose the proposed quashing orders, it had to serve by 4 pm on 13 July a properly drawn-up witness statement, supported by a statement of truth, setting out its position and attend the next hearing through an instructed advocate or, at least for that hearing, through a director if permitted.
4. Failure to comply. If no witness statement was served, the court would proceed on the basis that the interested party consented to the agreed order. The order would then be made without a further hearing.
5. Licence issues. The court recorded that there appeared to be no power under the relevant Act to backdate the first licence. It had also considered it arguable that the Council had no power to revoke a licence, where the Act provided for cancellation by a court but contained no provision for revocation or variation by the local authority.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. Permission had previously been granted on 28 June 2016 in relation to the first licence. The judgment adjourned the hearing to allow the interested party to participate before any consent order was made.