Lack of consultation sees Court of Appeal quash decision by council to close adult education centre

In BUJ, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Bromley [2026] EWCA Civ 888 (10 July 2026), Lord Justice Dingemans, with whom Lady Justice Whipple and Lord Justice Baker agreed, allowed the appeal and dismissed the council's cross-appeal.

He said: “This means that BUJ's claim against the council that it was unlawful to decide to close the Poverest Centre without first consulting learners with learning difficulties and disabilities (LLDD) and their carers succeeds, and the decision to close the Poverest Centre will be quashed. The council will have to carry out a consultation of LLDD users of the Poverest Centre and their carers before deciding whether to close the Poverest Centre.”

The London Borough of Bromley had planned to sell the site of the Poverest Centre, some of whose attendees have learning difficulties, for housing and transfer courses elsewhere in the borough.

Andrew Burns KC, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, found in January this year that long-term users of the centre had a legitimate expectation to consultation “in the same way that a local authority should consult residents of an old people's home or users of a care centre which they proposed to close”.

However, he decided the outcome for the claimant would have been the same even had Bromley correctly consulted service users before deciding to close the centre.

Mr Burns held that 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 applied to the case.

The claimant, BUJ, appealed the decision, claiming that there had been an unlawful failure to consult with BUJ and other learners with learning difficulties and disabilities (LLDD) who used the Poverest Centre.

Considering the case, Dingemans LJ said: “In my judgment the judge was right to find that the council was under a common law duty to consult with LLDD users of the Poverest Centre and their carers before the decision to close was taken. This was a small group of readily identifiable persons, being the 99 LLDD individuals regularly using the Poverest Centre and their carers.

“The evidence showed that for some of them the Poverest Centre was a centre of their lives outside their homes. The LLDD users had a legitimate expectation, arising under the duty on the council to act fairly, that they and their carers would be consulted before the Poverest Centre was closed and it would be irrational to close the Poverest Centre without giving them the opportunity to make representations. This was because they would reasonably expect adult education services to continue to be provided at that location, but that if a change were to be made, they would be notified and consulted before a change was made.”

Counsel for Bromley submitted that there was an additional requirement to be satisfied before a duty to consult could be imposed on the council, namely a requirement to show prejudice to an individual.

He referred to dicta to the effect that there would be "no breach of the principles of procedural fairness even if a particular step has not been taken where that has not resulted in any prejudice to the individual.” (Stonehenge).

Considering this, Dingemans LJ said: “The court in Stonehenge was addressing the common law principles about procedural fairness in terms which were consistent with the summary of legal principles set out above. As noted above what fairness requires will always be fact specific. In Stonehenge there was no basis on which a finding of a breach of procedural fairness could be made, because there was not any unfairness to any individual, so it was not an additional requirement to be satisfied, it was simply an illustration of the point that there is very unlikely to be unfairness if no one has been prejudiced or affected.

“In this case, by contrast, applying the principles set out in paragraphs 34 to 40 above, it was irrational to close the Poverest Centre without first consulting the 99 LLDD users of the Poverest Centre and their carers. That plainly prejudiced them, and is the basis for finding that there was a legitimate expectation of consultation before closure of the Poverest Centre.”

Looking at whether the judge erred in his application of section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, Dingemans LJ did not accept the proposition that if there has been an unlawful failure to carry out a consultation, it will never be possible to say that it was highly likely that the relevant decision would have been the same. Adding: “Everything depends on its particular facts”.

Concluding the case, he said: “I would allow BUJ's appeal and dismiss the council's cross-appeal. This means that BUJ's claim against the council that it was unlawful to decide to close the Poverest Centre without first consulting LLDD users of the Poverest Centre and their carers succeeds, and the decision to close the Poverest Centre will be quashed.

“The council will have to carry out a consultation of LLDD users of the Poverest Centre and their carers before deciding whether to close the Poverest Centre. Such a consultation will have to be carried out in accordance with Gunning principles. Although it may be that the council will make the same decision to close the Poverest Centre after taking into account the product of the consultation exercise, I am unable to say that it is highly likely that it will do so.”

Lady Justice Whipple and Lord Justice Baker agreed.

Basmah Sahib, Solicitor in Bindmans’ Public Law team, who represented the claimant, said: “The judge (LJ Dingemans) said that 'judicial review is a process designed to permit the speedy audit of the legality of public decision making' and that is exactly what has happened for those affected by the decision to close the Poverest Centre. I remain inspired by the way the local community came together to challenge the closure of this local LLDD provision. We’re very grateful for this incredibly helpful ruling from a senior court, which has confirmed that disabled people should be consulted before the services that they depend upon are withdrawn.

“The Poverest Centre will remain open and the students – and their families – must be given an opportunity to make their concerns known to the Council. Today’s ruling confirms that they had a right to be heard all along; and the Court of Appeal has acknowledged that what the students and their families have to say is capable of making a difference.”

Lottie Winson