![[2025] UKUT 00090 (IAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AioYBzS.png){kind=logo}
The Respondent’s case
The Respondent’s case
The Respondent relies on KBL v SSHD & Ors [2023] EWHC 87 (Admin) and R (Begbie) v Department of Education and Employment [1999] EWCA Civ 2100 for the propositions that inconsistency in decision-making is not a free-standing ground for judicial review; and that we should be slow to fix the Respondent permanently with the consequences of five mistakes, which did not give rise to any legitimate expectation on the Applicant’s part, in the context of a scheme requiring prioritisation of up to 20,000 beneficiaries.
- Heading
- Decision
- The Respondent’s initial rejection of the Applicant for ACRS
- The Respondent’s decision under challenge
- The relevant passages of the ACRS and ARIPS
- The Applicant’s application for judicial review and the grant of permission
- Ground (1) - Interpretation of the ACRS and whether the Respondent misapplied it
- The Respondent’s case
- Legal principles - Interpretation of policy
- Conclusions on Ground (1)
- Ground (2) – the adequacy of the reasons in the Respondent’s decision
- The Respondent’s case
- Legal principles on sufficiency of decision-making reasons
- Conclusions on Ground (2) and the adequacy of the reasons in the decision
- Ground (3) – arguable perversity based on inconsistent decisions
- The Respondent’s case
- Legal principles on irrationality because of inconsistency of treatment and legitimate expectations
- Conclusions