TV Harrison CIC, R (On the Application Of) v Leeds School Sports Association [2022] EWHC 130 (Admin) (25 January 2022)

TV Harrison CIC, R (On the Application Of) v Leeds School Sports Association [2022] EWHC 130 (Admin) (25 January 2022)

The defendant's decision was unlawful because it failed to consider obviously material factors (such as the statutory appropriation process and planning policy), adopted a one-sided approach by giving determinative weight to its own development intentions, and failed to apply the correct legal test under section 88(1)(b) of the Localism Act 2011. The decision also gave rise to apparent bias due to the contractual obligations to dismiss the ACV nomination and the lack of a meticulous, balanced analysis.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 130 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: TV Harrison CIC; Defendant: Leeds City Council; Interested Party: Leeds School Sports Association
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; decision quashed.
Legal Topics
Assets of Community Value, Judicial Review, Bias in Decision Making, Material Considerations, Section 88 Localism Act 2011
Administrative Law Planning Law Local Government Law Assets of Community Value Judicial Review Bias in Decision Making Material Considerations Section 88 Localism Act 2011

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TV Harrison CIC

Claimant

Leeds City Council

Defendant

Leeds School Sports Association

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant erred in law in refusing to list the TV Harrison Sports Ground as an asset of community value under section 88(1)(b) of the Localism Act 2011.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant failed to consider material considerations, acted with apparent bias, or applied the wrong legal threshold.

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's decision was unlawful because it failed to consider obviously material factors (such as the statutory appropriation process and planning policy), adopted a one-sided approach by giving determinative weight to its own development intentions, and failed to apply the correct legal test under section 88(1)(b) of the Localism Act 2011. The decision also gave rise to apparent bias due to the contractual obligations to dismiss the ACV nomination and the lack of a meticulous, balanced analysis.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; decision quashed.

Orders

  • The defendant's decision of 22 December 2020 refusing to list the TV Harrison Sports Ground as an asset of community value is quashed.
  • Parties to prepare the resulting order.