Sean David Wilkinson, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Enfield
| Judge | Mr Justice Mould |
| Neutral Citation | [2024] EWHC 1193 (Admin) |
| Date | 17 May 2024 |
| Counsel | Alex Goodman Kc,Matt Hutchings Kc,James Maurici Kc,Joel Semakula |
| Year | 2024 |
| Court | King's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EWHC 1193 (Admin)
Case No: AC-2023-LON-002703
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: Friday 17th May 2024
Before :
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MOULD
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
THE KING
On the application of
SEAN DAVID WILKINSON
Claimant
- and -
LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD
Defendant
-and –
TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR LIMITED Interested Party
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ALEX GOODMAN KC (instructed by Public Interest Law Centre) for the Claimant
MATT HUTCHINGS KC (instructed by LB Enfield Legal Services) for the Defendant
JAMES MAURICI KC and JOEL SEMAKULA (instructed by Richard Max and Co) for
the Interested Party
Hearing dates: 6th, 7th and 8th February 2024
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 2pm on Friday 17th May 2024 by circulation to
the parties’ representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
.............................
MR JUSTICE MOULD
Judgment Approved by the court for handing down
WILKINSON V LB ENFIELD
Mr Justice Mould :-
Introduction – the parties and the claim
1. This is an application for judicial review of the decision of the Defendant, the London
Borough of Enfield, to enter into an agreement with the Interested Party, Tottenham
Hotspur Limited [‘THL’], to grant a lease for a term of 25 years of part of Whitewebbs
Park [‘the Park’] for use as a women’s and girls’ football academy and a turf academy.
The Defendant’s decision to enter into the lease with THL was taken by the Leader of
the Defendant on 7 July 2023 and confirmed by the Defendant’s Overview and Scrutiny
Committee on 27 July 2023. On 22 September 2023 the Defendant entered into an
agreement for lease [‘the Agreement’] with a wholly owned subsidiary of THL,
Tottenham Hotspur Football Co Limited [‘THFCL’].
2. The Claimant is a retired teacher. He has lived in Enfield since 1981. He lives locally
to the Park which he has used regularly since 2008. He visits the Park every day to walk
his dog, to socialise at the café, and to enjoy the surroundings, the wildlife and the peace
and quiet which the Park offers. He observes other members of the public enjoying the
Park for informal recreation and as a valued local amenity. He has been active in the
campaign to oppose the proposed disposal of part of the Park to THL since 2019. Since
early 2020 he has chaired the Friends of Whitewebbs Park with the objective of keeping
the local community informed about the Defendant’s plans and of protecting and
enhancing the Park as an open space for the Enfield community.
3. THL is the holding company of various subsidiaries through which Tottenham Hotspur
Football Club [‘the Club’] is operated. Those subsidiaries include THFCL. The Club
is a long established and successful professional football club whose men’s and
women’s teams play in their respective premier leagues. The club already has a
presence in Enfield as its training centre is located at Whitewebbs Lane, to the east of
the Park.
4. The Defendant is the local authority for the Borough of Enfield, within whose
administrative area the Park is situated. The Defendant is the freehold owner of the
Park, which is registered land under title number AGL378679.
5. The Claimant’s first ground of challenge is the Defendant acted beyond its powers in
deciding to enter into the agreement for lease (and in subsequently entering into the
Agreement). In particular, the Defendant was not empowered to exercise its powers
under section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 [‘the 1972 Act’] to dispose of
land within the Park. The Park is open space for the purposes of the Greater London
Parks and Open Spaces Order (as confirmed by the Ministry of Housing and Local
Government Provisional Order Confirmation (Greater London Parks and Open Spaces)
Act 1967) [‘the 1967 Act Order’]. The Claimant’s case under ground 1 of his claim is
that by virtue of the saving provisions of section 131 of the 1972 Act, the Defendant’s
powers of disposal of land within the Park are limited to those conferred by the 1967
Act Order, which do not empower the Defendant to dispose of open space forming part
of the Park for uses as proposed by the Interested Party. In particular, the Claimant
contends that the Defendant is not empowered to grant a lease which will result in some
Judgment Approved by the court for handing down
WILKINSON V LB ENFIELD
18 per cent of the Park being inaccessible as open space for the public’s enjoyment for
a period of up to 25 years.
6. On his second ground of claim, the Claimant contends that the Defendant’s decision to
enter into an agreement to grant the proposed lease of land at the Park to THFCL (and
subsequently to enter into the Agreement) was unlawful as the Defendant had failed to
appropriate the land from its current use as open space for the purposes of its disposal
to THFCL. In particular, the Defendant had failed in its duty under subsection 122(1)
of the 1972 Act to consider whether that land continued to be required for the purposes
of providing open space for the enjoyment of the public.
7. The Claimant’s third ground of challenge is that the Defendant failed to take properly
into account, or to act consistently with, the statutory purposes for which the Defendant
holds the Park. The Claimant contends that the land at the Park which is to be disposed
of by way of the proposed lease to THFCL is held by the Defendant under section 164
of the Public Health Act 1875 [‘the 1875 Act’] for the purposes of being used as public
walks and pleasure grounds. The land is accordingly held by the Defendant on trust for
enjoyment by the public. The Claimant says that the Defendant either failed to take
account of that factor or acted contrary to that statutory purpose in deciding to dispose
of “public trust land” to THL for use as a private football training and turf academy.
8. The Claimant’s fourth and final ground of challenge is that in deciding to proceed with
the proposed disposal by way of lease to THFCL, the Defendant was wrongly advised
that it was able to treat the premium payable upon completion of the proposed lease as
a capital receipt and use that money to reduce its borrowing and financing costs. The
Claimant argues that was a material error, since as a matter of law the correct position
is that the money received from the disposal of this land held on public trust must be
re-invested in the remaining public trust land at the Park.
9. On 8 September 2023 the Claimant issued his claim for judicial review of the Leader
of the Defendant’s decision to proceed with the agreement for lease to THL, later
confirmed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. On 22 September 2023 the
Defendant entered into the Agreement. On 1 November 2023 Lang J granted
permission. On 21 November 2023 the Claimant applied for permission to amend his
claim so as to extend his challenge to the Defendant’s decision to enter into the
Agreement. The Claimant proposed no amendment to his substantive grounds of claim.
On 17 January 2024, Lang J approved a draft consent order between the parties giving
the Claimant permission to amend his claim.
Factual background
10. The Park is an extensive area of public open space which used to form the park land of
the former White Webbs Estate. On 1 September 1931 the White Webbs Estate was
sold to Middlesex County Council [‘MCC’]. MCC purchased the Estate with the
intention of retaining White Webbs House and some surrounding land for institutional
use. The remaining parkland was to be leased to Enfield Urban District Council [‘the
UDC’] for the purposes of a public open space, public parks, walks, pleasure grounds
and sports grounds. An area of 50 acres was to be used for the purpose of a sports
ground under section 69 of the Public Health Act 1925 [‘the 1925 Act’].
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
1 cases
-
The Badger Trust v Natural England
...EWHC 289 (Admin) at §101. An example considering commercial sensitivities and lack of relevance is R (Wilkinson) v Enfield LBC [2024] EWHC 1193 (Admin) [2024] PTSR 1532 at §267. I am not striking any final or determinative balance. That would be wrong in principle. It could foreclose on how......