Moseley, Consultations, and the Age of Austerity

O'Loughlin, Elizabeth

Abstract

This chapter re-appraises the UK Supreme Court case of Moseley v London Borough of Haringey 10 years later. Focus is given to two aspects of the judgment that were judged at the time to have unsettled the law of consultation: the requirement to consult on alternative rejected proposals; and the differing approaches of Lord Wilson and Lord Reed. The chapter finds that the potentially ‘radical’ implications of requiring consultation on discarded alternative options have been confined. However, subsequent case law shows a greater willingness amongst judges to closely scrutinise the design and content of consultation documents. The more existential debate over whether Lord Wilson’s approach – orienting the duty to consult in the wider duty of procedural fairness at common law – or Lord Reed’s position that the duty to consult is derived principally from statutory context and purpose, would prevail has proved overblown.

Citation

O'Loughlin, E. (in press). Moseley, Consultations, and the Age of Austerity. In L. Graham, & J. Russell (Eds.), The Supreme Court at 15: Reflections on Public Law Cases. Routledge

• Deposit Date: Jan 23, 2025
• Publisher: Routledge
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Book Title: The Supreme Court at 15: Reflections on Public Law Cases
• Public URL: https://durham-repository.worktribe.com/output/3348154
• Contract Date: Dec 8, 2024