R (Moseley) v London Borough of Haringey [2014] UKSC 56

Facts

• Haringey London Borough Council introduced a local council tax reduction scheme intended to replace the previous council tax benefit arrangements. The new scheme shifted a significant proportion of the financial burden onto low-income households, including single parents, persons with disabilities, and others already in receipt of welfare support.
  The claimants—on behalf of those adversely affected—argued that the scheme had an uneven and regressive effect on the borough’s most economically vulnerable residents.

• Before implementation the council conducted a public consultation. That exercise comprised an online questionnaire, limited publicity, and the provision of brief explanatory material summarising the options considered. No alternative models—such as increasing council tax generally or making savings elsewhere—were placed before consultees.

• The claimants maintained that consultees were not given a fair opportunity to consider the proposal’s true impact, to compare it with realistic alternatives, or to respond in an informed manner. They therefore sought judicial review, alleging that the consultation failed to satisfy the requirements implied by the relevant statutory framework and by the common-law duty of procedural fairness.

• The High Court rejected the claim; the Court of Appeal allowed it in part. The matter reached the Supreme Court, whose task was to determine whether Haringey’s consultation complied with the law. Although the fiscal merits of the scheme were not directly in issue, the adequacy of the process by which the scheme was adopted was central to the dispute.

Issues

1. Whether Haringey Council’s consultation met the minimum standards required by statute and by common-law principles of fairness governing public consultations.
2. Whether consultees had been furnished with sufficient, accurate, and intelligible information to allow them to understand both the council’s preferred scheme and any materially different alternatives.
3. Whether the timeframe, publicity, and modalities of the consultation afforded affected residents a genuine opportunity to participate and thereby satisfied the demands of procedural fairness.

Decision

• The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal and ruled in favour of the claimants. The majority (Lord Wilson delivering the leading judgment) held that the consultation had not been conducted in a lawful manner.

• Central to the Court’s reasoning was the conclusion that consultees were deprived of “adequate information” about the possible options. In particular, the council omitted any reference to alternative models that would have mitigated the financial impact on the poorest residents, thereby preventing intelligent consideration and response.

• The Court emphasised that lawful consultation is not a perfunctory formality. Authorities must place “enough information” before the public to permit a conscientious response; they must also approach the exercise at a stage when proposals remain genuinely open to influence.

• Because the informational deficit infected the entire process, the resulting scheme was quashed and the council was required to revisit its decision-making in accordance with the clarified principles.

Legal Principles

• Origin and scope of the duty

  • A duty to consult may arise from express statutory language, from the need to secure procedural fairness where individual rights or legitimate expectations are affected, or from a combination of both.
  • Where such a duty exists, the consultation must satisfy the four criteria first articulated in R v Brent LBC ex p Gunning (the “Sedley criteria”):
    1. Consultation must occur at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage.
    2. Consultees must be given sufficient information to permit intelligent consideration and response.
    3. Adequate time must be allowed for that consideration and for the formulation of responses.
    4. The decision-maker must conscientiously take the product of consultation into account before adopting a final proposal.

• Information requirements

  • The Supreme Court stressed that the second criterion is not met merely by presenting a preferred option. Public bodies must also outline “realistic alternative ways of achieving the desired objective” where those alternatives would be apparent to an informed decision-maker. Omitting such information distorts the exercise by steering consultees toward a single predetermined outcome.

• Accessibility and inclusivity

  • Consultation materials must be intelligible to the intended audience and available in formats that accommodate language barriers, disability, and digital exclusion. Failure to consider these factors may render the process unfair even if the core content of the material is otherwise adequate.

• Conscientious consideration

  • Decision-makers must do more than collect responses; they are required to examine them with an open mind and be willing to modify or abandon the proposal if the consultation reveals substantive flaws.

• Consequences of non-compliance

  • Where a consultation is unlawful, the resulting decision is susceptible to quashing. The Court reaffirmed that procedural defects cannot be cured retrospectively by later justifications because the public’s opportunity to influence the decision has already been lost.

Conclusion

R (Moseley) v Haringey LBC [2014] UKSC 56 confirms that meaningful public participation is a legal prerequisite, not a discretionary courtesy, whenever a statutory duty to consult or a legitimate expectation arises. A public authority must consult while its proposal is still provisional, furnish enough information (including credible alternatives), allow adequate time, ensure accessibility, and then examine the feedback with an open mind. The decision strengthens the protective function of procedural fairness and provides a clear template—rooted in the Sedley criteria—for all future consultations carried out by public bodies in the United Kingdom.