High Court dismisses challenge brought by football club over refusal by council to grant lease for sports facilities

Football Samurai Academy is involved in a dispute with Ealing over land it leases for sports activities, and whether the council went back on what was believed to be a promised new lease.

Christopher Kennedy KC, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, said two claims were before him concerning Ealing’s decision not to grant of a lease at North Acton playing fields.

He said he had to decide whether either claim was filed out of time, whether the first claim was validly served and, if not, whether service should be retrospectively validated, and whether, if the second claim was filed out of time, the court should nonetheless extend time.

The academy complained that in March 2025 it received “entirely out of the blue” a letter from Ealing requiring possession of the premises by 22 April 2025 and demanding backdated rent of £34,275.61.

The deputy High Court judge said the academy claimed nothing issued by Ealing had previously indicated a lease would not be granted, while the council asked him to attach greater weight to earlier correspondence, which it said showed that any lease granted would not be on the same terms.

The judge said he looked for speed in judicial review claims and the particular importance of the service of the claim form with the consequent need for care in ensuring rules are strictly complied with.

A dispute had arisen over whether Ealing accepted service by email, which in the event it did not, and over at which point the relevant decision over the lease was taken by the council.

The deputy High Court judge said the academy had not established a good reason for him to exercise my discretion under CPR r 6.15.

He said: “The claimant is seeking to deprive the defendant of a limitation defence. The error which led to the failure may have been trivial and the results are harsh but that is a necessary consequence of the regime and the importance of there being ‘bright lines’. I therefore decline to exercise my discretion.”

There was also no good reason to extend time for filing the second claim, the judge found.

He explained: “My reasons for that are that the second claim was not made promptly, that there was no good reason for the delay, the issues whilst important to the parties, do not have any wider significance. I do not consider the claim arguable.

“Whilst the prejudice to the defendant is confined to the loss of a limitation defence, it is detrimental to good administration to permit the claim to continue.”

Mark Smulian