Oxford’s congestion charge has survived a legal challenge after the High Court found the case had no realistic chance of success.
Open Roads for Oxford Ltd announced last autumn its plans to seek judicial review of Oxfordshire County Council’s implementation of the congestion charge in Oxford.
Mr Justice Johnson refused permission for the judicial review to proceed in January.
The group then applied for the decision to be reconsidered at a short oral renewal hearing.
The hearing took place on March 24 before Mr Justice Fordham.
Mr Justice Fordham also rejected Open Roads for Oxford Ltd’s application, maintaining the earlier refusal of judicial review permission.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Johnson determined that there was no viable judicial review claim on any of the grounds advanced, adding that none of them had a realistic prospect of success.
Open Roads for Oxford Ltd argued that the council’s decision to introduce the congestion charge was unlawful. The court considered whether the claim should proceed to a full hearing.
Permission was refused, bringing the legal challenge to an end at this preliminary stage. The congestion charge remains in place.
Open Roads for Oxford Ltd maintained that Oxfordshire County Council acted unlawfully in introducing the congestion charge. The group claimed the consultation was flawed and that the equality impact assessment did not satisfy public sector equality duty requirements.
Both Mr Justice Johnson and Mr Justice Fordham rejected these arguments and would not allow the case to continue.
Robin Tucker, speaking for active travel organization CoHSAT, said the judgment enabled Oxford residents to continue benefiting from quicker journeys and improved air quality. Open Roads for Oxford Ltd had spent over £40,000 of its supporters’ money on a case the judge found had no realistic prospect of success. The group had advocated for a return to traffic congestion and chaos, ignoring the benefits of reduced congestion and pollution for the 90 percent of visitors to Oxford’s centre who do not use private cars.
Open Roads for Oxford Ltd has been ordered to pay the council’s legal costs, capped at £10,000.
Open Roads for Oxford Ltd said it was deeply disappointed by the court’s refusal but was proud to have taken the case this far and grateful for all support received. The court did not find that the scheme was fair, popular, or well-evidenced. It only established that the council met the minimum legal threshold to proceed. This challenge had exposed just how low that threshold is. The court noted that 66 percent of respondents said there should be no charges at all and acknowledged identifiable shortcomings in the council’s own Equality Impact Assessment. It had effectively confirmed that legally, a council can consult, receive overwhelming opposition, and still proceed, provided it has followed the necessary procedural steps. That might be legal, but it was not democratic. Regarding the Equality Impact Assessment, the court’s finding was telling: flawed did not mean unlawful. This process had achieved greater transparency and established the legal limitations in holding a council to account. Accordingly, attention would now turn elsewhere. The campaign would continue. The group would keep challenging this publicly, politically, and relentlessly, because Oxford deserved better than policies imposed on residents against their wishes. Change would come through the court of public opinion and ultimately at the ballot box. All eligible residents were encouraged to vote in the city council election on May 7. While the County Council decided to proceed with the scheme, the City Council had allowed it to happen, and every opportunity must be taken to register displeasure. The voter registration deadline was April 20.