AC-2024-LON-0001595 - [2025] EWHC 2182 (Admin)

Fecha: 29-Ago-2025

Ground 1 – Breach of Natural Justice

Ground 1 – Breach of Natural Justice

Ground 1 - Submissions

77.

This ground is based on the failure by the SoS to give Rydon an opportunity to respond to evidence submitted by the Interested Parties and the Deputy Mayor of London as to their reservations about appointing Rydon to do the remediation works. Mr Litton submits that in the context of this case, the SoS should at the very least have provided Rydon with the “gist of the case which [it] has to answer”: see R v SSHD ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 at 560D to G. Mr Litton also referred me to:

R (Miller) v Health Service Commissioner for England [2018] EWCA Civ 144 at [43]:

“The use of the phrase “gist of the allegations” should not be seen to obscure a fundamental right accorded to the person affected by the common law rules of natural justice, namely “to have afforded to him a reasonable opportunity of learning what is alleged against him and of putting forward his own case in answer to it””;

ii)

R (Anglian Water Services Limited) v Environment Agency [2004] EWHC 1506 (Admin) at [26]:

“Anglian submits that there was a breach of the rules of natural justice in that copies of the letters from Mr Drinkwater and Mr Thomas dated June 17 and July 3, were not sent to Anglian so as to enable them to respond to their contents before the decision was made. The Agency acknowledge that it should have done so and expresses regret at the omission; but submits that it was a lapse that did not have adverse consequences so far as Anglian was concerned as the letters did not contain any new information. I do not agree. The letters set out detailed reasons why the residents considered that a private treatment plant was impracticable, evidence that had not been advanced before the first determination. Anglian should have been given the opportunity to comment on their contents. In my judgment the failure to give Anglian the opportunity to do so was a procedural flaw that rendered the decision-making process unfair.”;

iii)

Kanda v Government of Malaya [1962] AC 332 at 337 (Inspector of Police dismissed “without being given a reasonable opportunity of being heard”);

iv)

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Sittampalam Thirukumar [1989] Imm AR at 414 (Asylum seeker unlawfully denied opportunity to see previous answers and reasons for Home Office’s decision).

78.

Mr Litton submits that the Deputy Mayor and the RMCs had referred to certain matters, such as a water leak incident in 2010 and the lack of trust in Rydon, which it had no opportunity to answer, and which were taken into account in reaching decisions with very significant financial consequences for Rydon. It is said that this amounts to a breach of natural justice vitiating the decisions.

79.

Sir James submits that none of the authorities relied upon by the Claimant established a general right to the provision of information. The contractual context here is important: there is no contractual right to such information and such a right could not be contractually implied. In any event, Rydon did have the opportunity to make whatever representations it wished, and it ought to have been obvious to Rydon that there were deep concerns on the part of RMCs (and others) as to its fitness (within the meaning of the Contract and the SRTs) to carry out the remediation work.