Football Samurai Academy v London Borough of Ealing: service failures and judicial review time limits

The High Court dismissed two claims for judicial review brought by Football Samurai Academy Limited against the London Borough of Ealing, concerning the council's decision not to proceed with a lease renewal for North Acton Playing Fields. Christopher Kennedy KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge, delivered the judgement on 19 November 2025, finding fatal procedural defects in the first claim and refusing to extend time for the second.

The claimant had leased the premises since 2013, with the previous lease expiring in September 2022. Following protracted negotiations, a council officer made a decision on 17 April 2024 to grant a 21-year lease. However, on 25 March 2025, the council abruptly served notice to quit, demanding possession by 22 April 2025.

The claimant filed its first judicial review claim on 25 June 2025, challenging the council's decision to rescind the lease grant. Whilst the claim form was filed within the three-month time limit, service proved problematic. The claimant's solicitor emailed the sealed claim form to the defendant's solicitor on 2 July 2025, but this did not constitute valid service as the defendant had not agreed to accept service by email. When service was eventually effected by post on 17 July 2025, it fell outside the mandatory seven-day service window.

A second claim was filed on 25 July 2025, pleading a later decision date of 12 May 2025 to circumvent timing issues, though this meant the claim was filed one month out of time if the true decision date was 25 March 2025.

Application of Good Law Project principles

The court applied the principles established in R (Good Law Project) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] 1 WLR 2339 when considering whether to validate the defective service. The judgement emphasised that valid service of a claim form performs a special function—it subjects the defendant to the court's jurisdiction—and requires particular care, especially near limitation periods.

Kennedy KC rejected the application to validate service under CPR 6.15(2). Whilst acknowledging the defendant had received the claim form and was aware of its contents, he found this insufficient without more to constitute good reason. The failure to serve properly resulted from the claimant's solicitor's error, and the defendant would lose an accrued limitation defence. Following Carr LJ's reasoning in Good Law Project, the judge held that "quite trivial errors can sometimes lead to limitation deadlines being missed" and that such consequences, though harsh, are necessary to maintain clear procedural boundaries.

On the substantive merits, the court found the claim was not arguable. The claimant contended that the council's decision engaged public law principles because the land was designated for recreational use and decisions affecting public amenities transcend purely commercial considerations. However, Kennedy KC distinguished this from cases involving planning policy or improper purposes.

Applying R v Bolsover DC ex p. Pepper [2001] LGR 43 and R (Trafford) v Blackpool Borough Council [2014] EWHC 85 (Admin), the judge held that a local authority exercising statutory powers to grant or refuse a lease does not automatically render its decision a public law matter. The defendant's 17 April 2024 decision contained no public element—it concerned commercial property management. The subsequent decision not to proceed similarly lacked the requisite public law character.

The legitimate expectation argument also failed. Whilst the claimant may have had a legitimate sense of grievance, this did not generate enforceable public law rights absent a concluded agreement or clear representation.

Both claims were ultimately dismissed, reinforcing the importance of strict procedural compliance in judicial review proceedings and the limits of public law intervention in contractual disputes involving public authorities.

Copyright & permissions