R v Watford Borough Council, ex parte Incorporated West Herts Golf Club

Judicial review — Local authority opposing grant of new lease — Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 — Prejudicial decision — Whether applicant-lessees have legitimate expectation to consultations — Whether genuine consultations — Application allowedThe applicants have been in existence as a golf club since 1911 and held a 21-year lease from the respondents of land laid out and used as a golf course and club. The contractual term expired on March 31 1989. In 1983 the applicants were informed by the respondents that it was the wish of the council’s civic amenities committee that the club should make more days available for the public to use the golf course. Following several meetings, the respondents decided not to renew the lease. The respondents served a notice under section 25 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 seeking possession at the end of the term and stating that they would oppose the grant of a new lease on ground (g) of section 30(1) of the Act as they intended to occupy the property themselves. The applicants served a counter-notice stating that they were not willing to give up possession. The applicants sought judicial review of the decision of the respondents; they submitted that the respondents had proceeded with procedural impropriety in that the council were in breach of the legitimate expectation held by the applicants that negotiations would be conducted leading to increased facilities being made available for the public, and the renewal of the lease. Held The application was allowed and the decision of the respondents to oppose the grant of a new lease quashed. The affidavit evidence of the proceedings of the respondents’ committees revealed unfair treatment. The respondents had made up their mind to operate the course themselves and had not entered into genuine discussions or considered the liberal proposals of the applicants. There had been a breach of a legitimate expectation that genuine discussions would result. There had not been substantial delay as would cause hardship within the meaning of Ord 53(4) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, and the application could not be dismissed on this ground. Attorney-General of Hong Kong v Ng Yuen Shiu [1983] 2 All ER 346 followed. Lord Irvine of Lairg QC and Richard Drabble (instructed by Blaser Mills, of High Wycombe) appeared for the applicants; and Edward Cohen (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard, for the solicitor to the Watford Borough Council) appeared for the respondents.