Hospital closures and the rule of law

8 November 2013 by

lewisham-dont-keep-calm-posterTrust Special Administrator appointed to South London Healthcare NHS Trust v. LB Lewisham & Save Lewisham Hospital Campaign [2013] EWCA Civ 1409, 8 November 2013  – read judgment

Jeremy Hyam of 1 Crown Office Row acted for Save Lewisham Hospital Campaign. He was not involved in the writing of this post.

It takes a bit of time to close a hospital or make major changes to it. This is because you must go through a complicated set of consultations with all those likely to be affected before action can be taken. Many, if not most, people say this is a good thing, and Parliament has embedded these duties of consultation in the law.

In this case, the Department of Health said it could close the A&E Department of Lewisham Hospital, as well as limiting maternity services to midwives alone and reducing paediatric services – without going through the formal consultation process. The Borough of Lewisham, and a local campaigning group, said that the DoH had no power in law to do this.

The judge, Silber J, agreed with them, and so now does the Court of Appeal. It dismissed Jeremy Hunt’s appeal 10 days ago, and published its reasons today.

If Mr Grayling has his way, it seems unlikely that the Save Lewisham Hospital Campaign would have had “standing” to bring this claim, however meritorious in law it may have been: see my post on this. I dare say this lesson will not be lost on him, though, sadly, many think that such wins against the government make it more rather than less likely that he will implement his changes to the rules in judicial review.

Many of these fights about changes in the health service are driven by mind-bogglingly complicated statutory provisions. But the central wording here is simplicity itself. Section 5A of the National Health Service Act 2006  enables a Trust Special Administrator (TSA) to be parachuted into a failing trust, report to the Secretary of State on what should be done, thus enabling the DoH to get things done in a hurry. But the TSA can only make recommendations in respect of actions

in relation to the trust

And the problem here for the DoH was that the trust into which the TSA was parachuted was not the Lewisham Trust (which was not failing), but the South London Healthcare NHS Trust (SLHT), which ran three other hospitals in South London.

So a short point of statutory construction. The Borough and Save Lewisham Hospital said that the trust “in relation to” which action could be recommended was only the trust into which the TSA had been parachuted. So the TSA of SLHT could not make recommendations in respect of another trust which did not have a TSA. To do so, said the other parties, would drive a coach and horses through the consultation provisions elsewhere in the Act.

As I have said, both courts agreed with this argument. On the face of it, the answer is pretty easy. If the Act had intended the TSA to have a roving brief in respect of other trusts, it would have said so, and would not have have used the words it did – “the trust”.

So we can leave at home a lot of the anti-judge rhetoric that government often uses when it gets told off by the courts. The case is nothing to do with unelected judges imposing over-legalistic values upon the ordinary people of this country. By contrast, the TSA and/or DoH tried to take a highly suspect short-cut because it suited its interests to do so, got caught, and now has to take the steps it wants to take in a lawful way.

And that is what the courts are for – to make sure that government plays by the rules, not just the ones which suit it. Equally, if government wants to speed up hospital reorganisation, then it has to change the law through Parliament, and cope with any political flak which results.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS 

Read more:


  1. Mary Walker says:

    I find myself with a strange conflict of interests here. I am a constituent in Epsom and Ewell and Chris Grayling is our local MP. He does a fantastic job here protecting our best interests including (pending) saving Epsom Hospital’s A&E and assorted other vital departments and local services.

    Is he not an instrument of parliamentary law and not the maker of it?

  2. Jon Holbrook says:

    On spiked I have argued that judicial review is used increasingly to ensure that public bodies are tied up with bureaucracy and red tape. My argument refers to the Lewisham Hospital case:

  3. “I dare say this lesson will not be lost on him, though, sadly, many think that such wins against the government make it more rather than less likely that he will implement his changes to the rules in judicial review.”

    He will regret it though when he’s back in opposition. Evidently that IS lost on him. Ideological and short sighted as ever.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: