Centerprise Trust Ltd, R (on the application of) v London Borough Of Hackney

A public authority’s decision affecting private-law property rights may, in principle, be amenable to judicial review. The scope for intervention is, however, comparatively limited where the decision is essentially one concerning property. The court may intervene if the decision is Wednesbury unreasonable, but there is no general obligation to consult an occupying claimant before deciding to sell property. A legitimate expectation of continuing discretionary funding requires a sufficiently clear commitment or assurance. The absence of a defined amount, supporting evidence, or detrimental reliance may make such an expectation unlikely to succeed. Allegations of apparent bias require credible evidence that the allegedly biased decision-maker participated in the decision.

Centerprise Trust Ltd sought permission to appeal against Newman J’s refusal on 4 March 2002 of permission to apply for judicial review. The proposed claim concerned Hackney Council’s refusal to fund the Mare de Gras cultural diversity festival for 2001, after funding had been provided in earlier years.

Centerprise alleged a legitimate expectation of continued funding, unfair discrimination in comparison with another festival, bias in the appeal process, and procedural impropriety in the council’s decision to sell property occupied by Centerprise. The central questions were whether the proposed grounds had a real prospect of success and whether the property decision was reviewable in public law.

1. Application refused. Centerprise had no real prospect of establishing that the 1997 council report created a legitimate expectation of annual funding. The report approved funding of up to £40,000 for 1998 and contained no commitment to fund later years.
2. The alleged oral assurance of future funding was too uncertain and unsupported. The evidence was unreliable because the identity of the person said to have given the assurance had changed, there was no documentary support, and Centerprise did not show detrimental reliance or commitments made because of the assurance.
3. The comparison with the Stoke Newington festival did not disclose an arguable unfairness. That project was funded because the council had a contractual commitment to it. There was no equivalent contractual commitment to Centerprise.
4. The allegation that a councillor had doctored an emergency-action report was not considered. It had not been pleaded or supported by evidence, and the councillor and counsel had no proper opportunity to address it.
5. The bias challenge also lacked a proper evidential foundation. Although Mr Manion had been appointed to hear appeals, he stated that he excluded himself from Centerprise’s appeal, and there was no credible evidence that he participated in the decision.
6. There was nothing inherently incapable of public-law review about the council’s decision to sell property affecting Centerprise’s private-law rights. Nevertheless, judicial review of an essentially property-related decision had comparatively limited scope. The decision could be challenged if Wednesbury unreasonable, but the absence of prior consultation did not establish procedural impropriety. The council was under no obligation to consult Centerprise before deciding to sell.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): refused Centerprise’s application for permission to appeal against Newman J’s refusal of permission to apply for judicial review.
• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: Newman J refused permission to apply for judicial review on 4 March 2002.