![[2024] UKUT 178 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
19 February 2019 at 14:19, a Council official emailed DEFRA
19 February 2019 at 14:19, a Council official emailed DEFRA:
“Can you please advise us as to whether rehoming centres operated by charities require to be licensed under [the 2018 Regulations]. Also do stray dog reception centres need to be licensed. We have one site which is a charity rehoming centre where they board dogs which they own while they try to find them new homes. The same site also hosts a stray dog reception centre, where dog wardens bring strays to be assessed before being transferred to a licensed establishment in another borough.
It is our opinion that neither the charity rehoming centre nor stray dog reception centre currently need to be licensed under [the 2018 Regulations].
Any clarification you could provide will be welcomed”;
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to ALLOW the appeal
- If either party wishes to rely on any further written evidence or submissions, these are to be received by the First-tier Tribunal within one month of the date on which this decision is issued
- Directions (3) and (4) above may be varied by direction given by the First-tier Tribunal
- Background
- 14 February 2019, the RSPCA wrote to the Council’s Chief Executive
- 19 February 2019 at 14:19, a Council official emailed DEFRA
- 19 February 2019 at 15:07, a DEFRA official responded by email to the Council’s email of the same date
- 20 February 2019, a Council official emailed Mr Dally
- The Information Commissioner’s decision
- First-tier Tribunal’s decision
- disclosure of old legal advice would not assist in resolving any problems at MDH
- Legislative background
- Environmental protection legislation (stray dogs)
- Grounds of appeal
- The Commissioner’s arguments
- General principles
- Specific arguments
- even if the Upper Tribunal were to find a public interest in disclosure, that would not invalidate the Tribunal’s conclusion that disclosure would “erode the principle of legal professional privilege”
- Appellant’s arguments
- the supposed third formulation of the alleged misrepresentation – the Council said that the previous legal advice related to the 2018 Regulations rather than the 1963 Act regime – is styled by the Com
- Ground 1
- MDH continued to operate without a license despite kennelling stray dogs for up to 24 hours
- another local authority has required Animal Wardens Ltd, which sub-contracts with MDH, to seek a licence the Charity Commission took enforcement action to address a conflict of interests between Animal Wardens Ltd and MDH
- Closed session of hearing
- Conclusions