Norwich Livestock Market Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Norwich City Council

Under section 4(2) of the Norwich City Council Act 1984, the Council’s obligation concerning the Cattle Market extends beyond the franchise to the land on which the market was held when the Act commenced. That land must remain vested in the Council unless the statutory procedure for discontinuance under section 8 has been initiated and completed. The procedure includes consultation and the provision of an alternative market site, except in relation to the Fish Market. A disposal of the Council’s entire property interest cannot be used to anticipate or circumvent that procedure.

The claimant operated a livestock market at the Hall Road site in Harford under the protection of Part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The Council held a head lease of the site and surrendered it to the freeholder in return for payment and contractual obligations concerning a possible alternative market site.

The claimant sought judicial review, contending that the surrender unlawfully disposed of the Council’s interest in premises protected by sections 4 and 8 of the Norwich City Council Act 1984. The central issue was whether section 4(2) protected only the right to hold a market or also the land on which the Cattle Market was held.

1. Construction of the 1984 Act. Section 4(2) was not confined to the market franchise. Read with the statutory definition of the Cattle Market, the provisions concerning alternative market premises, and the history of the earlier local Acts, it required the land on which the relevant markets were held at the commencement of the Act to remain vested in the Council.
2. Restriction on disposal. The land had to remain vested in the Council unless and until the procedure in section 8 was initiated and completed. That procedure required consultation and the provision of an alternative market place or market house before discontinuance, subject to the express exception for the Fish Market. Otherwise, the safeguards in the Act could be defeated by an immediate disposal of the land.
3. Application. The surrender did not itself amount to a de facto discontinuance of the Cattle Market, since the claimant continued to operate from the Hall Road site. It nevertheless amounted to a purported disposal of the Council’s entire property interest contrary to section 4(2). The contractual provisions concerning the alternative site did not retain a sufficient property interest or satisfy the statutory scheme. They could leave the market without a viable alternative and anticipated the outcome of the required consultation.
4. The claim form was permitted to be amended so that the challenge concerned disposal of the Council’s property interest in the market premises. The appropriate form of relief was left for further submissions, having regard to the absence of an immediate threat to the market and the potential prejudice to the interested party.