Editorial note. This Case Note is a short, plain-English summary and our editorial opinion. It may not capture every issue in the case, may contain errors or become out of date, is not legal advice, and must not be relied upon. Always read the full judgment (linked below) and take advice from a qualified lawyer before acting.

When can a council close a service without consulting the vulnerable people who rely on it — and when will a court say a consultation "would have made no difference" anyway? On 10 July 2026 the Court of Appeal quashed a decision to close an adult education centre. In R (BUJ) v London Borough of Bromley [2026] EWCA Civ 888, the Court held the council owed a duty to consult and that the "highly likely" bar in section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 was not met.

What the case was about

BUJ — an adult in his late 30s with learning disabilities, atypical autism and epilepsy — had used the Poverest Centre for some 14 years (paras 8–9). Facing budget pressure, Bromley decided in December 2025 to close it, sell the site for housing, and consolidate adult education at the Kentwood Centre with "spoke" venues (paras 7, 10–16). An Equality Impact Assessment recorded 99 LLDD learners at Poverest and acknowledged accessibility and travel concerns (para 18). The Deputy High Court judge found an unlawful failure to consult but refused relief under section 31(2A), and rejected PSED and Tameside challenges (para 3). BUJ appealed; the council cross-appealed on whether any duty to consult arose (paras 4–5).

What the Court of Appeal decided

Dingemans LJ, Senior President of Tribunals (with Baker and Whipple LJJ), allowed BUJ's appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal (paras 58–60). There is no general duty to consult, but one arises where failure would cause "conspicuous unfairness"; here it was irrational to close without consulting the 99 LLDD users and carers (paras 36–37, 44), giving a legitimate expectation of a Gunning-compliant consultation (para 33). The council won on the PSED — the Equality Impact Assessment discharged the section 149 duty (paras 45–49) — but lost on section 31(2A): with nine options considered and the surplus-property list shrinking from 20 to 14 to 11, the court could not say consultation would "highly likely" have changed nothing (paras 50–56). The closure was quashed (paras 57–58).

Why it matters

Closing a service for vulnerable users can trigger a duty to consult (paras 36–44); section 31(2A)'s "highly likely" test is a high bar where real options remained (paras 50–56); and an Equality Impact Assessment can satisfy the PSED even where the separate consultation duty is breached (paras 45–49).

Explore the underlying law on Search the Law: the duty to consult and Gunning · section 31(2A) and the ‘highly likely’ test.

Read the full judgment: R (BUJ) v London Borough of Bromley [2026] EWCA Civ 888 (The National Archives).