Ex-leader of London borough to appeal High Court dismissal of judicial review challenging his naming in Ombudsman report

A former leader of the London Borough of Haringey has lodged an appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of his judicial review challenge over a decision by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman to name him in a report.

The report was issued in January 2022 by the Ombudsman – as the Commissioner for Local Administration in England – following an investigation into a complaint made by a Mr X about the actions of the council in connection with the proposed acquisition and demolition of his property as part of plans to redevelop a site.

Joseph Ejiofor was the Leader of Haringey at the time. Acting unilaterally, he had decided on the council's behalf that Mr X's house would not be bought. As Leader, he was entitled by the council's constitution to make the decision alone.

However, his claim against the Ombudsman’s decision to name him in its report was dismissed last month.

Announcing his appeal, Cllr Ejiofor said: "This case flows from someone complaining that the council pulled out of buying his house for three times its actual value, after confirming it was no longer needed for development. 

"While I disagree strongly with the Ombudsman’s criticism of me for this, it is their decision to name me that I have challenged because this is where their discretion is narrowly prescribed by law."

He added: "The Ombudsman has been unwilling show a single other recent case in which they decided to name a councillor, and I believe their decision to name me was disproportionate, unfair and unlawful. 

"I am disappointed with this judgment, and have filed an appeal which I hope will be considered expeditiously.”

In Ejiofor, R. (On the Application Of) v The Commissioner For Local Administration in England [2022] EWHC 3174 (Admin) counsel for Mr Ejiofor had advanced five renewed grounds for judicial review. These were that:

1. Section 30(3) of the Local Government Act 1974 places different restrictions on two separate acts, i.e. naming a person and including particulars which are likely to identify a person, but the defendant Ombudsman wrongly conflated them.
2. The defendant failed to take the claimant's interests into account when deciding to name him.
3. The defendant failed to apply the correct test of whether naming was "necessary".
4. The decision to name the claimant was procedurally unfair because he was not given sufficient opportunity to comment on the proposal.
5. The decision was insufficiently reasoned.

However, Mr Justice Bourne dismissed these grounds as not arguable. The judge also said the claim had not been brought promptly.