Football Samurai Academy Limited, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Ealing

In judicial review proceedings, a decision is made when a public authority finally adopts its position, not when earlier communications merely indicate possible future change. The court’s power retrospectively to validate defective service of a claim form requires a good reason. Knowledge of the claim is insufficient. Strict service requirements and the defendant’s potential limitation defence remain important, even where the error is technical and causes no other prejudice. The merits of the claim are irrelevant to that service discretion. An extension of time for a late judicial review claim likewise requires good reason and strict adherence to time limits. A local authority’s decision concerning the identity of a lessee will ordinarily be a private-law matter unless an additional public-law element, such as exercise of a public function, improper purpose, bad faith or a genuine public law challenge, is established.

The claimant sought permission for two judicial review claims concerning the defendant local authority’s decision not to proceed with a lease of sporting facilities at North Acton Playing Fields. The first claim identified the decision as the defendant’s letter of 25 March 2025, but its claim form was served late and by an ineffective method. The second claim was filed on 25 July 2025, relying on 12 May 2025 as the decision date or seeking an extension if the earlier date applied.

The court had to determine the date of the decision, whether the first claim could be saved by retrospective validation or an extension of time, whether time should be extended for the second claim, and whether the proposed public-law and legitimate-expectation grounds were arguable.

1. Decision date. The relevant decision was made on 25 March 2025. The October and December 2024 communications indicated misgivings and a possible change of direction, but did not amount to a final decision. The letter of 12 May 2025 confirmed the earlier decision rather than creating a new one. The first claim was therefore filed in time.
2. Service of the first claim. The claim form was served outside the period required by CPR r 54.7. Applying the guidance in Good Law Project, the court treated promptness and strict compliance with service requirements as important. The defendant knew of the claim, but that did not establish good reason under CPR r 6.15(2). Unlike the circumstances discussed in Good Law Project, service by email had not been accepted at all. The claimant’s solicitor’s error, the need for a clear procedural deadline and the defendant’s potential loss of its limitation defence justified refusing retrospective validation. An extension under CPR r 3.1(2)(a) was likewise refused. The first claim form was set aside for want of jurisdiction.
3. Second claim. The second claim was one month late. The court considered the delay, the absence of an adequate explanation, the importance and arguability of the issues, prejudice and the interests of good administration. There was no good reason to extend time. The fact that the first claim had been filed in time but lost through ineffective service did not justify the extension.
4. Merits. The proposed challenge was not arguable. The original decision to grant the lease had no public element comparable to the situation in Bolsover. The later decision not to grant the lease did not acquire a public-law character merely because the land was used for recreation or the claimant had occupied and invested in the premises. The identity of the lessee was distinct from the use of the land. No genuine and substantial allegation of fraud, corruption, bad faith or improper motive was advanced. The claimant’s expectation and sense of grievance did not amount to a legitimate expectation capable of generating public-law rights.
5. The first claim was set aside, and permission was not granted in either claim.