BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> BG & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Suffolk County Council (Consequentials) [2022] EWCA Civ 1053 (26 July 2022)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2022/1053.html
Cite as: [2022] EWCA Civ 1053

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

Neutral Citation Number: [2022] EWCA Civ 1053
Case No: CA-2022-000005

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Lang J
[2021] EWHC 3368 (Admin)

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
26 July 2022

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE BAKER
LADY JUSTICE NICOLA DAVIES
and
LORD JUSTICE PHILLIPS
____________________

Between:
The QUEEN on the application of
(1) BG (by his mother and litigation friend SQ) and
(2) KG (by his mother and litigation friend SQ)
 Claimants/
Respondents
- and -
Suffolk County Council
 Defendant/
Appellant

____________________

Andrew Sharland QC and Lee Parkhill (instructed by Suffolk County Council Legal Services) for the Appellant
David Wolfe QC and Catherine Rowlands (instructed by Bindmans LLP) for the Respondents
Hearing dates : 16 June 2022
____________________

HTML VERSION OF SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT ON CONSEQUENTIALS
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

    Lady Justice Nicola Davies :

  1. Quashing of the appellant's decision dated 12 November 2020 (paragraph 2 of draft order).

    2. It was the clear intention of Lang J to quash the decision of 12 November 2020. The omission of the decision to quash in the order of 14 December 2021 was an error. The court will quash the decision dated 12 November 2020 in order to rectify the error.

  2. Relief sought by the respondents – payment of sums which would allegedly have been paid to each respondent had the decision of 12 November 2020 not been made (paragraph 3 of draft order).

    3. This claim was not included in:

    (i) The judicial review claim form;

    (ii) The order of Lang J dated 14 December 2021;

    (iii) The respondents' notice in these proceedings;

    (iv) The respondents' skeleton argument in these proceedings nor in the oral submissions made to the Court of Appeal.

  3. The claim was raised for the first time in the respondents' draft order for this court following circulation of the draft judgment to the parties. It is, in effect, a claim for restitution. If the intention was to make such a claim it should have been pleaded from the outset and raised before Lang J. It was not. It would be neither fair nor reasonable for this court to grant relief upon a new aspect of the respondents' case at this very late stage.

    4. Lord Justice Phillips

  4. I agree.

    5. Lord Justice Baker

  5. I also agree.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2022/1053.html