Sanders & Anor v Airports Commission & Anor [2013] EWHC 3754 (Admin) (02 December 2013)

Sanders & Anor v Airports Commission & Anor [2013] EWHC 3754 (Admin) (02 December 2013)

The court held that, applying the objective test for apparent bias, a fair-minded and informed observer would not conclude that there was a real possibility of bias in the Airports Commission's adoption of the sift criteria. Mr Muirhead's prior relationship with MAG was too remote, he had no knowledge of MAG's specific proposals at the relevant time, and the sift criteria were generic and subject to consultation. The claim was also brought out of time without sufficient justification for extension. Accordingly, the claim for judicial review failed.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3754 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Peter Sanders; Claimant: Brian Ross; First Defendant: Airports Commission; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for Transport
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Apparent Bias, Judicial Review, Airport Policy, Conflict of Interest
Administrative Law Public Law Apparent Bias Judicial Review Airport Policy Conflict of Interest

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Sanders

Claimant

Brian Ross

Claimant

Airports Commission

First Defendant

Secretary of State for Transport

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the involvement of Mr Geoff Muirhead in the Airports Commission gave rise to apparent bias affecting the sift criteria for long term airport capacity proposals.
  2. 2 Whether the sift criteria adopted by the Airports Commission should be quashed due to apparent bias.
  3. 3 Whether the claim was brought in time or should be dismissed for delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, applying the objective test for apparent bias, a fair-minded and informed observer would not conclude that there was a real possibility of bias in the Airports Commission's adoption of the sift criteria. Mr Muirhead's prior relationship with MAG was too remote, he had no knowledge of MAG's specific proposals at the relevant time, and the sift criteria were generic and subject to consultation. The claim was also brought out of time without sufficient justification for extension. Accordingly, the claim for judicial review failed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application for judicial review refused
  • No order quashing the sift criteria