Sanders & Anor v Airports Commission & Anor

Sanders & Anor v Airports Commission & Anor

There was no real possibility of apparent bias affecting the sift criteria or the Commission's decision-making prior to MAG's submission in July 2013. Mr Muirhead was too remote from MAG's core business, lacked knowledge of MAG's Stansted plans, and the sift criteria were developed through an iterative, consultative...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Peter Sanders; Claimant: Brian Ross; Defendant: Airports Commission; Defendant: Secretary of State for Transport
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim for judicial review 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

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Sanders

Claimant

Brian Ross

Claimant

Airports Commission

Defendant

Secretary of State for Transport

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Muirhead's involvement in the Airports Commission gave rise to apparent bias affecting the sift criteria for airport expansion proposals.
  2. 2 Whether retrospective operative effect applies to decisions made while Mr Muirhead was a Commissioner.
  3. 3 Whether the sift criteria were tainted by apparent bias due to Mr Muirhead's links with Manchester Airports Group.

Ratio Decidendi

There was no real possibility of apparent bias affecting the sift criteria or the Commission's decision-making prior to MAG's submission in July 2013. Mr Muirhead was too remote from MAG's core business, lacked knowledge of MAG's Stansted plans, and the sift criteria were developed through an iterative, consultative process. Retrospective operative effect does not apply; the claimants' challenge is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • Permission to bring claim for judicial review granted.
  • Substantive action dismissed.