R (Williams) v Caerphilly County Borough Council

The claimant sought judicial review of two Cabinet decisions: adoption of a 10-year Sport and Active Recreation Strategy and the decision to close Pontllanfraith Leisure Centre. Key statutory provisions considered included section 13 of the Local Government Act 2000 and paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 to the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Functions and Responsibilities) (Wales) Regulations 2007, section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 and section 19 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, the Local Government (Wales) Measure 2009 (sections 2 and 5), the Well‑Being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and the public sector equality duty under section 149(1) of the Equality Act 2010.

The court held that (1) the Sports Strategy was a high‑level strategy document and the Cabinet had authority to adopt it: the decision did not amount to a determination concerned with the Council’s budget, borrowing or capital expenditure under Schedule 4 paragraph 2 and so did not have to be taken by full Council; (2) adoption of the Strategy without detailed costings was not Wednesbury unreasonable because it did not commit the Council to specific expenditure; (3) the Local Government (Wales) Measure 2009 did not render the Strategy decision unlawful because that Measure is directed to making improvement arrangements rather than applying as a legality criterion to every strategic decision; (4) the Closure Decision to close Pontllanfraith Leisure Centre failed to comply with the public sector equality duty because there was insufficient evidence of conscious, focused consideration of the likely impact on older and disabled people; and (5) the Council’s failure to pursue community asset transfer did not make the Closure Decision unlawful. The application for judicial review was allowed in part, succeeding on the equality duty ground only.

Background and parties: The claimant, Shane Williams, challenged two Cabinet decisions of Caerphilly County Borough Council: on 14 November 2018 the adoption of a Sport and Active Recreation Strategy 2019–2029; and on 10 April 2019 the decision to close Pontllanfraith Leisure Centre with effect from 30 June 2019. The matter came before Swift J on a rolledup hearing after an order by Spencer J (17 May 2019) granting permission to apply for judicial review.

Nature of the application and relief sought: The claimant sought judicial review on five grounds directed to the lawfulness of the Strategy Decision (grounds 1–3) and the Closure Decision (grounds 4–5): (1) that adopting the Strategy was outside Cabinet authority under the Executive Arrangements Regulations; (2) that adoption was unlawful for lack of cost information; (3) that the Council breached duties under the Local Government (Wales) Measure 2009 (sections 2 and 5); (4) that the Closure Decision breached the public sector equality duty (Equality Act 2010, s.149); and (5) that the Council failed to consider community asset transfer as a relevant option.

Issues framed by the court: For the Strategy Decision the court identified four questions derived from Schedule 4 paragraph 2 of the 2007 Regulations: (i) what function was being discharged; (ii) whether the decision was concerned with budget, borrowing or capital expenditure; (iii) which budget or plan was material; and (iv) whether the decision was contrary to or not wholly in accordance with that budget or plan. For the Closure Decision the principal issues were compliance with the public sector equality duty and whether community asset transfer had been properly considered following consultation.

Reasoning and conclusions: The judge concluded the proper statutory basis for the Strategy Decision was the ancillary power in section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 rather than section 19 of the 1976 Act, and that the Sports Strategy was a non‑prescriptive policy document setting direction rather than committing the Council to particular capital expenditure. The Strategy Decision was not 'concerned with' the Council’s budget, borrowing or capital programme for the purposes of Schedule 4 paragraph 2 and therefore the Cabinet had authority to adopt it. The absence of detailed costings did not render the adoption Wednesbury unreasonable because it did not legally bind the Council to specific future expenditure and detailed costings over a ten‑year horizon would be inherently speculative. The court rejected the claimant’s argument that sections 2 and 5 of the 2009 Measure were material to the legality of the Strategy Decision, holding those duties govern the making of improvement arrangements rather than acting as general legality criteria for all strategic decisions; the court also rejected the Council’s submission that the 2009 Measure had been rendered obsolete by the 2015 Act.

On the Closure Decision the court found the Council failed to demonstrate that it gave the necessary conscious and rigorous consideration to the public sector equality duty, particularly as to the impact on older and disabled users; prior equality assessments (2017 and the Strategy EIA) were inadequate or addressed different matters and the Officer’s Report did not show focused analysis of equality impacts. The claim therefore succeeded on Ground 4. The court rejected the argument that the council’s failure to explore community asset transfer rendered the Closure Decision unlawful, finding the consultation response did not amount to a concrete expression of interest and pursuing transfer was not a legal obligation.

Remedy and implications: The claim was allowed in part: the challenge to adoption of the Sports Strategy failed; the challenge to the Closure Decision succeeded on the equality duty ground. The judgment reiterates that the public sector equality duty is a process‑based obligation requiring focused, documented consideration at decision‑taking.

The application for judicial review was allowed in part. The court held that the Cabinet had authority to adopt the Sports and Active Recreation Strategy and that adoption without detailed implementation costings was not unlawful (Strategy Decision challenge dismissed). However, the Closure Decision to close Pontllanfraith Leisure Centre was unlawful because the Council failed to comply with the public sector equality duty (Equality Act 2010, s.149(1)); the claim succeeds on that ground. The failure to pursue community asset transfer did not render the Closure Decision unlawful.

Permission for judicial review was granted by Spencer J by order dated 17 May 2019 and the rolled‑up substantive hearing was before Swift J on 19 June 2019 (this judgment handed down 24 June 2019).