The Appellant, a local resident of South Tyneside and member of the campaign group, argued that the public consultation process was flawed, essentially because the final options were too similar and specifically did not include the option to “retain services” at South Tyneside District Hospital, in contravention of the the statutory duty of public involvement in section 14Z2(2) of the National Health Service Act (“NHS”) 2006 and also of the principle in R (Moseley) v London Borough of Haringey UKSC 56 and. The proposals attracted significant high profile opposition and a petition by the campaign group, Save South Tyneside Hospital, to retain consultant-led services at South Tyneside District Hospital received nearly 40,000 signatures (from a population of 152,000). The Respondent Clinical Commissioning Groups (“CCGs”) proposed moving certain services from South Tyneside District Hospital to Sunderland District Hospital and the final proposals were the subject of public consultation. This case arose from a public consultation and decisions made regarding the reconfiguration of hospital services (stroke, maternity and gynaecology, and emergency paediatrics) across two hospitals in Sunderland and South Tyneside. R (Nettleship) v South Tyneside Clinical Commissioning Group EWCA Civ 46 News Eleanor Grey QC, Vikram Sachdeva QC, Adam Fullwood, Annabel Lee 29th January 2020