The Margery Kempe Trust, R (on the application of) v Norfolk County Council

A public authority’s disposal of land below best consideration is lawful where the statutory general consent applies and the authority has complied with any required internal authorisation. Apparent bias is assessed objectively by reference to all relevant circumstances and the perspective of a fair-minded and informed observer. Professional or civic connections, without more, do not establish a real possibility of bias. Pre-application discussions and grant-funded preparatory work do not create procedural unfairness where they were open to all potential bidders and did not undermine the formal process. A judicial review claim must address the decision challenged; objections directed to earlier decisions may be out of time and irrelevant to the later disposal decision.

The Margery Kempe Trust sought permission to challenge Norfolk County Council’s decision of 27 January 2025 to sell the Carnegie Library Building in King’s Lynn to The Garage Trust for £95,000. The Trust alleged procedural unfairness, predetermination, lack of transparency, apparent bias, illegality, breach of legitimate expectation, inadequate due diligence, breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty, failure to consult and breach of fiduciary duty.

The Council had previously decided in 2022 to relocate the library and, on 2 September 2024, declared the building surplus and authorised a closed-market disposal to charity and community groups. The central issues were whether the 2025 selection process was arguably unfair or biased, whether the disposal was legally authorised, and whether the remaining grounds were arguable.

1. Time and evidence. The court extended time for the challenge to the 27 January 2025 decision because the short delay was adequately explained and the Council did not object. Permission was granted to rely on additional evidence concerning the alleged head start and grant funding.
2. Disposal powers. Under section 123(2) of the Local Government Act 1972, the Council could dispose of the building for less than best consideration because the general consent in paragraph 2 of Circular 06/03 applied. The valuation evidence showed that the difference did not exceed £2 million, and the disposal was capable of promoting social well-being. The Council’s constitution required Cabinet authorisation, which had been given on 2 September 2024. The disposal was therefore neither ultra vires nor a breach of fiduciary duty.
3. Apparent bias and fairness. The test was objective: the court had to consider all relevant circumstances and ask whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias. The membership of a civic board by both a councillor involved in the process and The Garage Trust’s chief executive did not, without further political, business or personal connections, satisfy that test.
4. The Garage Trust’s earlier pre-application discussions and its successful grant application did not establish an undisclosed preferential track. Such steps were proper preparatory activity which the Trust could also have undertaken. The formal competition remained open and fair, and the analogy with a VIP fast track was rejected.
5. The due-diligence, Public Sector Equality Duty and consultation grounds were unarguable. The latter two principally concerned the earlier 2022 and 2024 decisions, rather than the 2025 disposal decision.

The application for permission was dismissed. The Trust was ordered to pay the Council’s costs, limited to counsel’s costs for the application. The court did not determine the application for a costs capping order.