Scunthorpe United Football Club Ltd, R (on the application of) v Greater Lincolnshire LEP Ltd & Ors

In judicial review of a public funding decision, the court must assess whether the decision was one which a reasonable authority could reach. The decision-maker determines the relevant considerations and the manner and intensity of inquiry, subject to rationality review. Where competing schemes are assessed, it is sufficient to investigate the factors material to the funding objective, including deliverability and the production of required outputs within the relevant period. A challenge alleging that greater weight should have been given to a rival proposal is a merits challenge. Procedural fairness does not ordinarily require one bidder to be given details of another bidder’s proposal.

The claimant, a professional football club, sought judicial review of the defendant local enterprise partnership’s decision to allocate £1.9 million to North Lincolnshire Council for a northern road junction forming part of the Lincolnshire Lakes development.

The claimant contended that the defendant had failed adequately to investigate and compare its alternative southern-junction proposal, had acted irrationally in assessing outputs and delivery times, and had acted procedurally unfairly by withholding details of the council’s bid. The defendant relied on an independent expert report and argued that its decision was rational, that no disclosure obligation arose, and that relief should in any event be refused.

1. The claim was dismissed. The defendant’s decision was not one which no reasonable authority could reach.
2. The applicable rationality question was whether the decision was one which a reasonable authority could reach. The court rejected the suggestion that a specially heightened or reduced intensity of review applied merely because the defendant was distributing public funds. The defendant’s local knowledge, expertise and broad discretion remained relevant to the court’s assessment.
3. Under R(Khatun) v Newham LBC [2005] QB 37, there was no fixed list of matters which the defendant had to consider. Subject to rationality review, it was for the defendant to determine the manner and intensity of its inquiry. Obtaining an independent report which considered information from both bidders and relevant public bodies was sufficient.
4. The material issue was whether a junction scheme was deliverable and would produce an economic output within the grant period. The northern scheme had planning permission, funding and an identifiable business-park output. Uncertainty about that output was rationally addressed by conditions. The southern scheme faced substantial planning, funding, design and timing difficulties. There was no irrationality in investigating it less extensively or declining to impose equivalent conditions.
5. The complaint that the southern junction should have been preferred because it might ultimately offer greater benefits was a merits challenge. The choice between the schemes involved local expertise, policy and polycentric judgment, and was not for the court to make.
6. There was no procedural unfairness. A bidder had no general right to receive details of a rival bid or to make submissions designed to undermine it. The alternative conclusion under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 was also satisfied: it was highly likely that the outcome would have been the same even if further inquiry or information had been required. No decision was made on section 31(6) or the academic nature of the claim.