Supreme Court refuses to hear library closure appeal
The Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal by campaigners against library closures because it does not “raise an arguable point of law of general public importanceâ€.
The Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal by campaigners against library closures because it does not 'raise an arguable point of law of general public importance'.
The Court of Appeal attacked an 'air of unreality' in equality arguments put forward by campaigners against the closure of six of the 12 public libraries in Brent, London, in a ruling handed down in December last year (see solicitorsjournal.com, 20 December 2011).
Lord Justice Davis made the comment as he rejected claims that Brent Council had breached section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 by failing to take into account the risk of indirect discrimination against the borough's Asian residents, who use the libraries more regularly than their black and white neighbours.
Dismissing the campaigners' appeal, Davis LJ said it was plain that a significant proportion of Brent library users, being Asian, stood to be affected by the closure.
He said the importance of complying with section 149 should not be understated, but, in a case where the council was 'fully apprised' of its duty under the section and had the benefit of a 'most careful' report and equality impact assessment (EIA), he considered that an 'air of unreality has descended over this line of attack'.
Daivs LJ went on: 'Councils cannot be expected to speculate on or to investigate or to explore such matters ad infinitum.'
Lord Justice Pill, who gave the leading judgment in R (on the application of Margaret Bailey and others) v London Borough of Brent [2011] EWCA Civ 1586, and Lord Justice Richards agreed that the appeal should be rejected.
John Halford, partner at Bindmans, acted for the campaigners. He said the Court of Appeal ruling was 'very difficult to reconcile with what parliament intended when it enacted the equality duty that obliges Brent, and all other local authorities, to properly grapple with the impact withdrawal of local services of this kind has on communities'.
The campaigners were ordered to pay the costs of the application to the Supreme Court.