Dore & Ors v Leicestershire County Council & Anor

A community contribution towards premises jointly used as a school and community centre may impress the premises with charitable obligations for community use, but does not ordinarily confer a proprietary interest or contractual right on the contributing association. Where educational and community purposes compete, trustees and school authorities may give substantial weight to the school’s effective operation and the welfare of pupils. They may require users to meet non-profit running costs, including heating, lighting and caretaking. Public funding for community use remains subject to the local authority’s public law discretion. A substantive legitimate expectation requires a clear and unambiguous assurance, free from relevant qualification.

The claimants, acting for the Breedon-on-the-Hill Community Association, challenged Leicestershire County Council and the school governors over the management of premises comprising a primary school and community facilities. The association claimed contractual, proprietary estoppel, constructive trust and charitable trust rights arising from a £3,000 community contribution towards construction costs. It also challenged decisions to impose charges, restrict access and terminate the existing arrangements. The public law challenge to an earlier decision had become academic. The live issues concerned the nature and extent of the charitable obligations affecting the premises, the authority to prioritise school use and impose charges, and the legality of the Council’s April and May 2009 decisions.

1. Private law rights. No binding contract or enforceable assurance was established. The contemporary schemes were statutory instruments subject to variation, and the parties’ later conduct was inconsistent with a contractual entitlement to free use. The absence of a formal written and sealed agreement was also significant under the law then applicable to local authorities. Proprietary estoppel and alternative constructive trust arguments could not overcome that conclusion.
2. Charitable trusts. The fundraising monies were held for charitable community purposes. When the £3,000 contribution was made, the Council became subject to a constructive trust obligation affecting the premises. The whole property was also subject to charitable educational obligations because the Council should have conveyed its interest to the school trustees under the Education Act 1946. The community association itself acquired no beneficial interest.
3. Balancing purposes. The Council, governors and head teachers had to exercise their powers rationally, for proper purposes, and with regard to both educational and community purposes. In a significant conflict, they were entitled to prefer the effective operation of the school and the interests of pupils, while seeking reasonable accommodation of community use.
4. Charges and funding. A trustee was not required to spend its own resources to maintain trust property or provide use without charge. Non-profit charges could be imposed to meet additional heating, lighting, caretaking and similar costs. The Council had a wide public law discretion to reduce subsidy for community activities.
5. Public law challenges. The decisions of 24 April and 22 May 2009 were not irrational. Option 5 would have given the association control over the hall and required an indefinite subsidy, creating an unworkable conflict with the school’s operation. No substantive legitimate expectation arose because there was no clear, unqualified assurance. Concerns about security and CRB checks were genuine and peripheral to the decisive reasons.
6. Disposition. The private law and public law claims were dismissed.