[2014] UKSC 56
UKSC 2013/0116
R (on the application of Moseley (in substitution of Stirling) (AP) (Appellant) v London Borough of Haringey (Respondent)
On appeal from the Court of Appeal (Civil division) (England and Wales)
This appeal concerns the proper approach to consultations, and in particular those conducted under the Local Government Finance Act 1992 in respect of proposed "Council Tax Reduction Schemes" introduced to replace council tax benefit. It considers whether a fair consultation requires that consultees be informed not just of the proposals of the local authority, but also of the reasons for the proposals. Additionally it considers whether consultees should be given sufficient information to enable them to critically examine the thinking that led to the proposals. The Respondent local authority consulted upon a Council Tax Reduction Scheme (CTRS). Following the consultation, the Government announced a Transitional Grant Scheme (TGS). The Respondent adopted a CTRS without re-consultation claiming that the TGS did not affect the draft scheme. The Appellant argued that the consultation process was unfair and unlawful because (1) consultees had not been provided with sufficient information to understand that there were alternatives to the draft scheme; and (2) the Respondent should have re-consulted when the TGS was announced.
The Supreme Court unanimously allows the appeal and declares that the consultation exercise was unlawful. However it declines to order the Respondent to undertake a fresh consultation exercise because this would be disproportionate in the circumstances.
