Harlesden residents say the council can’t sell the depot without their permission, whereas the council says they can’t make that argument without Suella Braverman’s permission.
A battle over a bus depot being waged between the London Borough of Brent and the Harlesden Peoples Community Council (HPCC) looks set to be sent to attorney general Suella Braverman for her consideration.
Brent council wants to sell the depot, in Stonebridge, Harlesden, north London, which they bought in 1982.
However, grassroots local organisation HPCC claims it can’t do this because the bus station was partially paid for by them, through government grants that they applied for.
The dispute has led to a war of procedural attrition between the parties, and a trial is scheduled at the High Court for July.
In an attempt to get the litigation thrown out, lawyers for the council argued in a hearing last month that the HPCC cannot bring substantial amounts of its legal argument without the involvement of the attorney general, the chief legal adviser to the crown.
This, they argued, was because the charity lacked formal standing to bring its case, but, according to another charities case, Hauxwell v Barton-on-Humber (1974), that could be remedied if the attorney general decided to “take up cudgels on behalf of the local charity”.
The case was further complicated when, in March last year, lawyers for Brent wrote to the attorney general’s office asking whether the attorney planned to take those cudgels up.
The answer from the AG’s office was, according to the judgment: “Dear all, I write to confirm that as presently instructed and based on the materials disclosed to date, the attorney general will not be applying to join these proceedings.”
Giving judgment today, Mr Justice Birss said that that the case appears to have gone awry.
“I will make no secret of the fact that it seems to me that something has gone wrong in these proceedings,” he said.
He added that while he could see the legal reason for the AGs involvement, “the email from the AG’s office is unspecific”.
“I am not surprised, given the way the matter was presented,” he said, noting that “it was not made clear to the AG what the consequences of a decision not to join the proceedings would be”.
The judge added: “I would be much happier if it was clear whether the AG had decided not to join the proceedings because the view was taken that the AG was content for the charity point to be decided without the AG’s involvement, or whether the AG was deciding to act in such a way as to prevent the charity point from being argued in the exercise of the AG’s role in representing the beneficial interest under any charitable trust. We do not know.”
The judge also agreed that all the legal authorities do indeed suggest that the AG needs to be involved, in some way, in this case.
“I am satisfied I should allow the appeal. The question is what order to make instead,” he said.
“The trial is due in July. I will hear the parties as to the proper order to make but I will say that I am minded to make an order joining the AG as a defendant.
“If the AG wishes to maintain a neutral stance on the charitable trust argument then nothing further needs to happen. If the AG’s view is against the existence of the charitable trust, then she can say so and the point will then need to be struck out.”
This, therefore, may mean that unless Braverman decides to oppose the charities’ arguments, the battle of the Brent bus depot will be set for a summer showdown.
The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Brent
Claimant/Respondent
(1) Leonard Johnson (claiming to be a trustee of “Harlesden Peoples Community Council”) (2) Stonebridge Community Trust (HPCC) Ltd
Business and Property Court (Mr Justice Birss)
Matthew Smith (instructed by Bevan Brittan) acted for the respondent
Stephen Cottle (instructed by Hogan Lovells) acted for the appellants
Handed down under the Covid-19 Protocol
