R Tilley v The Vale of Glamorgan Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Lewis |
| Judgment Date | 13 September 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWHC 2272 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/2352/2016 |
| Date | 13 September 2016 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2016] EWHC 2272 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Lewis
CO/2352/2016
Mr Rhodri Williams QC and Mr Christian Howells (instructed by Watkins & Gunn) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr Jonathan Swift QC and Ms Rachel Kamm (instructed by Legal Services, Vale of Glamorgan Council) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
(No attendance by counsel at hand-down judgment)
Hearing dates: 29 and 30 July 2016 in the Cardiff Civil Justice Centre
POST-JUDGMENT
1. For the reasons given in the written judgment which I now hand down, this claim for judicial review is dismissed.
2. There is an application for permission to appeal on two of the grounds only in the original claim: firstly, it is alleged that the court erred in concluding that the assessment of the business case in the area of volunteer recruitment is rational; and secondly, that the court allegedly erred in concluding that the cabinet were sufficiently informed as to the issue of viability. Those grounds are then developed in 16 paragraphs of an application for permission to appeal lodged by the claimant, Ms Tilley.
3. In my judgment, there is no realistic prospect of either of these grounds succeeding, nor is there any other compelling reason for an appeal to be heard. For the reasons given in the judgment, the Council did not act irrationally in the way it approached the question of recruitment of volunteers to staff the community library, and when one considers the information before the cabinet, it did have adequate information to enable it to form a view on the question of the viability of the business case. For those reasons, permission to appeal is refused.
4. The parties have agreed consequential orders on costs and have provided a written order in that regard. There is also one order outstanding, as the claimant was given permission to amend and to file and serve an amended claim form, and there is a second order dealing with that matter.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
RD (A child by his litigation friend LD) v Worcestershire County Council
...children's welfare to “ be the paramount or even of primary consideration”: Nzolameso [28]; R (Tilley) v Vale of Glamorgan Council [2016] EWHC 2272 (Admin) [77]. Second, the section also does not alter the nature or scope of the functions to which it relates; it regulates the way in which ......