Brenda Hughes, R (on the application of) v Kirklees Council

Judicial review of a public body’s financial decision concerns lawfulness, not whether the decision was best. Irrationality may arise because the outcome lies outside the reasonable range, or because the reasoning process contains a material flaw, including serious logical or methodological error: [2018] EWHC 2094 (Admin).

Where an authority acts on officers’ reports, they must be read together and in context. The question is whether they materially misdirected the decision-maker. Reliance on an outdated figure is not necessarily irrational where its age or uncertainty is disclosed, the decision-maker could appreciate the risk of change, and wider financial and strategic factors show that substantial savings remain.

Brenda Hughes, a resident of one of two council-owned dementia care homes, challenged Kirklees Council’s decision to sell the homes to private operators. The Administrative Court, with Upper Tribunal Judge Ward sitting as a deputy High Court judge, refused permission in [2025] EWHC 3136 (Admin).

On appeal, two grounds remained. First, the Council was said to have acted irrationally by failing to investigate an alternative proposal to continue operating the homes while making possible savings. Secondly, reliance on an outdated estimate of the cost of independent provision was challenged. The judge accepted the latter irrationality argument but refused permission under section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, concluding that the outcome was highly unlikely to have differed. The Council’s respondent’s notice challenged the finding of irrationality. The central issues were whether either alleged defect rendered the decision unlawful.

1. Appeal dismissed. May LJ and Dove LJ agreed with the leading judgment of Zacaroli LJ.
2. Judicial review was concerned with the legality of the Council’s decision, not whether selling the homes was the best or most desirable course. The irrationality inquiry asked both whether the outcome was outside the range of reasonable decisions and whether the process contained a material defect, such as reliance on an irrelevant consideration, lack of evidence for an important step, or a serious logical or methodological error: R (Law Society) v Lord Chancellor [2018] EWHC 2094 (Admin); R (Wells) v Parole Board [2019] EWHC 2710 (Admin). A high threshold applied because the decision involved financial predictions, expert officers’ reports and judgments about allocating scarce public resources: R (Centro) v Secretary of State for Transport [2007] EWHC 2729 (Admin).
3. The first ground could not succeed. The Council’s choice of inquiries was governed by the Tameside duty. Having accepted the judge’s conclusion that the Council had made sufficient inquiries, the claimant could not repackage the same complaint as an independent irrationality challenge. In any event, experienced officers had considered the possible areas of saving and there was no credible basis for significant further savings. It was rational not to model an unformulated alternative in detail.
4. Where a decision is taken on officers’ reports, the reasons are found in those reports, read together and with reasonable benevolence in their local context. The issue is whether the reports materially misdirected the decision-maker on a matter bearing on the decision, such that the outcome would or might have differed: Mansell v Tonbridge & Malling BC [2017] EWCA Civ 1314.
5. The respondent’s notice succeeded. The £852.69 figure was known to date from early 2024. The December report disclosed that outdated values were being used and that later values might change. The Cabinet could appreciate that the figure might have increased. In the context of the Council’s wider strategy, avoidance of overspend and capital expenditure, and annual savings still exceeding £500,000, reliance on the figure was not materially misleading or irrational. The Court of Appeal therefore did not need to determine the alternative statutory consequence under section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
6. The pleading objection was dismissed. The first-instance case-management decision was within the reasonable range and disclosed no legal misdirection.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal dismissed. The Council’s respondent’s notice was upheld on the outdated-cost figure issue. [2026] EWCA Civ 308.
2. High Court of Justice, Administrative Court: Upper Tribunal Judge Ward, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, refused permission to bring the judicial review claim. [2025] EWHC 3136 (Admin).