Sky Blue Sports & Leisure Ltd & Ors v Coventry City Council & Ors

Specific disclosure in judicial review is exceptional. The governing question is whether disclosure is necessary to resolve the matter fairly and justly. Before permission, the court conducts a brief arguability assessment rather than a full examination of the merits. It may consider the possibility that further material will become available at the substantive hearing. A claimant therefore need not obtain disclosure merely to present its best case on permission, particularly where substantial material is already available. Applications may also be refused where the documents are not sufficiently relevant or where delay would prejudice the other parties.

The claimants challenged Coventry City Council’s decision to lend £14.4 million to Arena Coventry Limited. They alleged, among other matters, unlawful State aid, bad faith, improper purpose, ultra vires conduct and irrationality.

Permission for judicial review had been refused on paper. The claimants renewed their permission application and sought specific disclosure of loan documents and material underlying the Council’s summary grounds of resistance and supporting report. The issue was whether disclosure was necessary to determine the renewed permission application fairly and justly.

1. Application refused. The claimants failed to establish that the requested disclosure was necessary for the renewed application for permission.
2. The ordinary civil disclosure rules do not apply to judicial review. Disclosure is approached restrictively because fishing expeditions are undesirable and public authorities owe a duty of candid disclosure concerning their decision-making process. Disclosure orders remain exceptional.
3. The relevant test was whether disclosure was necessary to resolve the matter fairly and justly. The matter at this stage was the renewed permission application, not the substantive judicial review.
4. Permission involves a brief assessment of whether the papers disclose an arguable case meriting full investigation. It is not a rehearsal of the substantive hearing. The court may take account of relevant material that may become available later, and the absence of disclosure could itself be relied upon in support of granting permission.
5. The claimants already possessed extensive material, including the Council’s report and summary grounds of resistance. They had enough material to advance a respectable case on the issues identified by the paper refusal. The requested documents were therefore not necessary at that stage.
6. The judge also identified, without deciding, two possible additional grounds for refusal: uncertainty whether all the documents were materially relevant, and prejudice arising from the claimants’ substantial delay in seeking disclosure.

The renewed permission application remained for determination separately.

The judgment records that Males J refused permission on paper. The claimants renewed their application for permission, listed for a later oral hearing. The present application for specific disclosure was refused by the High Court (Administrative Court).