Case Law Briefings.
The judgments that change how you consult, in plain English, the week they land.
When a judgment lands that changes what lawful consultation looks like, tCI turns it into a short, plain-English briefing, what the court decided, and exactly what it means for the way you consult.
R (Hawes) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2026] EWCA Civ 24
The Court of Appeal quashed Tower Hamlets’ removal of a Bethnal Green Low Traffic Neighbourhood, not because the consultation was unfair, but because the scheme sat in an approved statutory plan the borough was bound not to act against.
A procedurally proper consultation cannot rescue a decision that itself breaches a statutory duty: the fairness of the consultation and the lawfulness of the action are separate questions.
The scheme, installed 2020 to 2022, sat in Tower Hamlets’ approved Local Implementation Plan under the Greater London Authority Act 1999. Singh LJ held that section 151(1)(a) carries a continuing “negative duty not to act inconsistently with an LIP approved by the Mayor of London.” The borough could not remove the scheme without first revising the LIP through the statutory process and obtaining the Mayor’s approval.
The Court upheld the two-round consultation as lawful, residents had a genuine opportunity to respond, and the late-emerging Option 3 did not require a further round. Yet the decision still fell. The lesson: a well-run consultation is necessary, but not sufficient, if the action it supports breaches a statutory duty.
“…a negative duty not to act inconsistently with an LIP which has been approved by the Mayor of London.”
Singh LJ · Hawes [2026] EWCA Civ 24
The four steps this ruling demands, and the questions it leaves open.
Establish whether the scheme sits in an approved LIP
Before consulting on the removal or modification of any transport or traffic scheme, establish whether it forms part of an approved Local Implementation Plan.
Use the statutory LIP-revision route, not a standalone exercise
If it does, a formal LIP revision – public consultation on the revised proposals plus the Mayor’s approval – is the legally required route. A standalone community engagement exercise cannot substitute for the statutory process.
Address the section 151 duty in the decision report
Cabinet decision reports should set out explicitly how the section 151 duty has been addressed and whether a LIP revision is required before any resolution is passed.
Treat removals as plan-revision exercises from the outset
Officers and legal advisers should treat proposed removals as plan-revision exercises, not ordinary local decisions subject only to public-law rationality.
The open questions the judgment leaves for future litigation
It is unclear whether the retention duty applies where a scheme was listed in the LIP but never fully implemented, or whether modest operational adjustments need a full LIP revision – and the pending Supreme Court application may reframe the core interpretation.
Members get the four practice steps in full, the open questions the judgment leaves behind, and the entire archive of past briefings, cross-linked in the Library.
tCI Case Briefing for Members, Issue 26/1 (March 2026). Full judgment: R (Hawes) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2026] EWCA Civ 24. Prepared for members; this briefing does not constitute legal advice.
What members get from Case Law Briefings.
tCI monitors consultation and engagement case law as it is handed down, so you hear what changed before it reaches you second-hand.
Every judgment is translated into what it means for the way you design and run a consultation – no need to read the law report yourself.
Each briefing ends with concrete actions for your next consultation, and the decision report that follows it.
Every past briefing stays searchable in the member Library, cross-linked to the guidance and precedents it affects.