Valley View Health Centre (a firm) & Ors v NHS Property Services Ltd

Negative declaratory relief is discretionary and should be granted cautiously. The court must identify a real and present dispute, consider whether the declaration would serve a useful purpose, examine any special reasons against granting it, and ensure that the result is fair and just to both parties. A declaration may be granted without a trial, but it is inappropriate where the issue is no longer disputed, the declaration adds no practical utility, or there is a real risk that it will mislead those affected. Admissions in pleadings may provide sufficient clarity, particularly where any remaining issues must proceed to trial.

Five GP practices sought judgment on admissions and negative declarations concerning NHS Property Services Ltd’s Consolidated Charging Policy. The claimants contended that the Policy was not incorporated into, or capable of varying, their tenancy arrangements. NHSPS accepted that the Policy had not retrospectively varied or been incorporated into the tenancies, but relied on the Policy as relevant to alternative claims for service charges based on the tenancies, a separate contract, unjust enrichment and estoppel.

The court considered whether the applications disclosed a real and present dispute, whether declarations would serve a useful purpose, and whether special reasons or considerations of justice made declaratory relief inappropriate.

1. The applications for judgment on admissions and negative declarations were dismissed. The underlying claims and NHSPS’s counterclaims remained capable of proceeding to trial.
2. Under CPR 14.3, the court has a discretion to enter judgment on admissions and is not bound to do so. The discretion was not determinative here because the counterclaims and the factual and contractual issues would remain for trial.
3. Negative declarations are discretionary and should be approached with caution. The relevant considerations include whether there is a real and present dispute, whether the declaration would serve a useful purpose, whether special reasons militate against it, and whether granting it would be fair and just to both parties. The court accepted the principles stated in Financial Services Authority v Rourke [2002] CP Rep 14 and Rolls Royce Plc v Unite the Union [2010] 1 WLR 318.
4. Although declaratory relief may be granted before trial, as illustrated by Patten v Burke Publishing Co Limited [1991] 1 WLR 541, there was no longer a real dispute about incorporation or retrospective variation when the applications were heard. NHSPS’s defences stated clearly that the service charges were claimed under the relevant tenancy arrangements rather than pursuant to incorporation of the Policy.
5. The declarations would serve no useful purpose. They could also be misunderstood as resolving the wider service-charge claims, particularly because the Policy remained relevant to NHSPS’s alternative causes of action. That risk constituted a special reason against granting relief and meant that justice between the parties did not require declarations.
6. The claimants were ordered to pay NHSPS’s costs in each application. The court declined to make merely a recital concerning costs or to defer the issue pending a possible third-party costs application against the BMA.

Not an appeal. The judgment determined applications in five related first-instance claims.