Littlehampton Harbour Board, R (On the Application Of) v Arun District Council [2024] EWHC 3293 (Admin) (18 December 2024)

Littlehampton Harbour Board, R (On the Application Of) v Arun District Council [2024] EWHC 3293 (Admin) (18 December 2024)

Section 19 of the West Sussex County Council Act 1972 includes any lawful expenditure for statutory purposes, including capital expenditure, subject to the s.21 duty and Bromley principles; the Defendant erred in law by construing s.19 as limited to budgetary balancing and excluding capital expenditure.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 3293 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Littlehampton Harbour Board; Defendant: Arun District Council; Interested Party: West Sussex County Council; Interested Party: Department for Transport
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed; decision of Arun District Council quashed.
Legal Topics
Statutory Construction, Fiduciary Duty, Public Finance, Harbour Authority Duties, Business Principles in Public Bodies

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Littlehampton Harbour Board

Claimant

Arun District Council

Defendant

West Sussex County Council

Interested Party

Department for Transport

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

  1. 1 Whether capital expenditure for infrastructure works falls within the scope of s.19 of the West Sussex County Council Act 1972
  2. 2 Whether Arun District Council erred in law by refusing to pay sums requested under s.19
  3. 3 Application of Bromley principles and s.21 duty to harbour board financial requests

Ratio Decidendi

Section 19 of the West Sussex County Council Act 1972 includes any lawful expenditure for statutory purposes, including capital expenditure, subject to the s.21 duty and Bromley principles; the Defendant erred in law by construing s.19 as limited to budgetary balancing and excluding capital expenditure.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; decision of Arun District Council quashed.

Orders

  • Impugned decision quashed; Defendant to respond to updated request from Claimant in accordance with judgment.