[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Leakey, R (on the application of) v North Yorkshire County Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1409 (29 August 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1409.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 1409

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE ROYAL COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
(MR JUSTICE RICHARDS)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London WC2 Wednesday, 29th August 2001

Wednesday, 29th August 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE DYSON: The claimant, Mr Leakey, lives in Settle, North Yorkshire. He has for some considerable time, along with others in the area, been exercised by the sale of certain pieces of land in Settle and Giggleswick by the North Yorkshire County Council and other bodies. Mr Leakey contends that the land in question has always belonged to the people of Settle and Giggleswick. He also contends that the sale of these pieces of land for development is contrary to the interests of the public. Indeed, he is of the view that the decision to sell to developers has been tainted by some degree of corruption.
2. The pieces of land in question are Bond Lane Field, Lord's Field and Castleberg Hospital. The land is in Settle and in Giggleswick. As I say, these pieces of land have been sold for development and development work has already begun certainly at the Bond Lane and Lord's Lane sites. I am unsure what the position is with regard to Castleberg Hospital.
3. Mr Leakey seeks orders requiring that the development work be stopped forthwith and that lawful reasons be given why the properties do not belong to the people. He seeks an order that the properties be returned to the people or an order confirming the people's joint ownership of them. He further seeks an order establishing what is subsequently to be done with the properties and an order for a proper police investigation of the background events. I should say that he tells me that he has sought to raise his concerns with the local ombudsman, who has referred him to the police, and that the police have been unable to assist him. He also seeks an order showing, and I quote from his documentation:

"... on one side what is being done solely for Moving Money and on the other side what would have to be done for Need regardless of whether or not money existed."

4. He, as I have said, is of the view that the decision of the authorities to sell the land in question has been taken corruptly and has been done for the purpose of financial gain rather than achieving public benefit.
5. This is not the first application made by Mr Leakey in respect of these issues. On 21st January 2000, Sullivan J refused an application for permission to apply for judicial review in respect of the same three properties and raising, essentially, the same issues. Sullivan J refused the application on the grounds, first, that there was no evidence that any of the public bodies in question had exceeded its powers, second, there was no evidence on which the court could reach any conclusion about the practicability of granting relief, and, thirdly, because the main burden of the complaints related to an allegation of corruption, which was a matter for the police rather than for the court on a judicial review.
6. When it was put to Mr Leakey by Richards J that he was essentially seeking to reopen the very same issues as had been rejected by Sullivan J, Mr Leakey contended that the previous application had failed because of the lack of evidence as to the ownership of the land and that he now had that evidence. But as Richards J pointed out, the earlier application had failed not because of lack of that evidence, but for the three reasons that I have just summarised. Richards J expressed the view that the material placed before him did not establish any material change of circumstances since the refusal of the previous application by Sullivan J. Richards J said that the application was essentially the same application, although with some additional documentary support as to the ownership of the land. This led Richards J to conclude that it would be an abuse of process to permit this fresh application to proceed since in substance it was the same as the application which had previously been rejected, which had not been the subject of appeal. Richards J went on to say that, in any event, he would have refused permission for the same reasons as given earlier by Sullivan J, and in particular because he could not discern any arguable ground of challenge to whatever action the public bodies in question had taken in relation to the three properties, and he could see no basis upon which the relief sought was to be sustained.
7. I have listened very carefully to what Mr Leakey has told me this morning. I regret to say that nothing that he has said has caused me to doubt in any way whatsoever the correctness of the conclusions reached by both Sullivan J and Richards J and for the very same reasons as they gave. There simply are not the beginnings of a case on the material before me that the sale by the public authorities of these three pieces of land was unlawful or that the developments which are now proceedings are themselves unlawful.
8. I well understand the strength of the feeling held by Mr Leakey and those who share his views. He has shown me photographs of the area and the land in question. It is an area of extreme beauty and I can well understand why any development of the kind now taking place is something to which he and other people object. The matter for the court, however, is whether what is going on is unlawful, and, as I have said, nothing that he has placed before the court raises even the beginnings of a case of unlawfulness.
9. For all these reasons, I would refuse permission to apply for judicial review.
Order: Application refused