Muir, R (On the Application Of) v Wandsworth Borough Council
The Council's decision to grant a lease of Neal’s Farm Lodge and Cottage to a private nursery operator was not a lawful exercise of its powers under the Greater London Parks and Open Spaces Order 1967, as the arrangement would exclude the public from access and use, contrary to the statutory trust under the Open Spaces Act 1906 and the intended purpose of the 1967 Order to provide facilities for public recreation. The lease would not provide a facility for public recreation but only for a limited group, and thus was ultra vires. The officer's authority to make the decision was valid, but this did not cure the substantive unlawfulness of the decision.
- Parties
- Claimant: Alexander Keay Muir; Defendant: Wandsworth Borough Council; Interested Party: Smart Pre-Schools Limited
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 28 July 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
- Outcome
- Claim allowed in part (Ground 1 succeeds, Ground 2 fails)
- Legal Topics
- Statutory Trusts, Open Spaces, Local Authority Powers, Judicial Review, Delegation of Authority, Public Recreation, Disposal of Public Land
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Alexander Keay Muir
Claimant
Wandsworth Borough Council
Defendant
Smart Pre-Schools Limited
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Council had lawful power to grant a lease of premises on Wandsworth Common to a private nursery operator under the relevant statutory framework.
- 2 Whether the decision to grant the lease was made by an officer with proper delegated authority under the Council's Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi
The Council's decision to grant a lease of Neal’s Farm Lodge and Cottage to a private nursery operator was not a lawful exercise of its powers under the Greater London Parks and Open Spaces Order 1967, as the arrangement would exclude the public from access and use, contrary to the statutory trust under the Open Spaces Act 1906 and the intended purpose of the 1967 Order to provide facilities for public recreation. The lease would not provide a facility for public recreation but only for a limited group, and thus was ultra vires. The officer's authority to make the decision was valid, but this did not cure the substantive unlawfulness of the decision.
Court Disposition
Claim allowed in part (Ground 1 succeeds, Ground 2 fails)
Orders
- The decision to grant the lease to the Interested Party is quashed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment