Article

The decision to consult or engage is rarely treated as a risk question. Most organisations approach it as a process question: what do we want to find out, and from whom? Recent case law suggests a different starting point is needed. Before you choose your method, understand what a court may make of it. The

On 22 January 2026, the Court of Appeal handed down a unanimous judgment in R (Hawes) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2026], ruling that a London borough cannot remove a transport scheme included in its Local Implementation Plan (LIP) without first completing a formal revision process. The decision has direct consequences for how public bodies across

Most organisations capture consultation and engagement data. Few treat it as something worth building. This article explores why engagement data is still managed as a by-product of activity rather than a strategic asset, what it takes to change that, and why the most compelling case for doing so is often found not in what the

Public consultation in high conflict projects fails for predictable, preventable reasons. This article sets out the five interventions that consistently improve outcomes and defensibility across regulated infrastructure, NHS service change, and contested local decisions, drawing on UK case law and independent review practice. What makes a public consultation “high conflict” in legal terms? A high

Public bodies running major consultations routinely use HM Treasury’s Green Book to appraise options, and routinely face legal challenge under the Gunning principles, the court-established legal test for lawful public consultation in the UK. The two frameworks share a common goal but impose conflicting demands on timing, disclosure and decision-making. This article examines those conflicts