Football club Leyton Orient today failed in a High Court fight to share the Olympic Stadium with rivals West Ham United.
Lewis J refused to grant permission for judicial review in the case in which the League One tabletoppers claimed the London Legacy Development Corporation was wrong to award sole tenancy of the stadium to the Premier League side.
Seeking the go-ahead for a judicial review of the decision, lawyers representing Leyton Orient had argued that the corporation’s decision not to allow it to share the stadium was flawed, and that it wrongly paid regard to a perceived lack of financial viability of a groundshare.
However, the judge ruled that Leyton Orient did not have an arguable case, finding that the Corporation had reached decisions it was entitled to make.
He rejected claims that the decision was irrational.
Adam Lewis QC had argued on behalf of Leyton Orient that the case was clearly arguable.
He told the judge: “Leyton Orient does not suggest that it would be viable as a sole occupant of the stadium. Nor does it seek by these proceedings to prevent, disrupt or delay West Ham’s move to the stadium.
“Rather Leyton Orient wishes to be allowed back into the procurement competition and to be awarded a concession to use the stadium jointly with West Ham.”
However, lawyers for the Corporation maintained that the case was without merit.
The Queen on the application of Leyton Orient Football Club Limited v London Legacy Development Corporation Administrative (Lewis J) 19 September 2013
Football club Leyton Orient today failed in a High Court fight to share the Olympic Stadium with rivals West Ham United.Lewis J refused to grant permission for judicial review in the case in which the League One tabletoppers claimed the London Legacy Development Corporation was wrong to award sole tenancy of the stadium to the Premier League side.Seeking the go-ahead for a judicial review of the decision, lawyers representing Leyton Orient had argued that the corporation’s decision not to allow it to share the stadium was flawed, and that it wrongly paid regard to a perceived lack of financial viability of a groundshare.However, the judge ruled that Leyton Orient did not have an arguable case, finding that the Corporation had reached decisions it was entitled to make.He rejected claims that the decision was irrational.Adam Lewis QC had argued on behalf of Leyton Orient that the case was clearly arguable.He told the judge: “Leyton Orient does not suggest that it would be viable as a sole occupant of the stadium. Nor does it seek by these proceedings to prevent, disrupt or delay West Ham’s move to the stadium.”Rather Leyton Orient wishes to be allowed back into the procurement competition and to be awarded a concession to use the stadium jointly with West Ham.”However, lawyers for the Corporation maintained that the case was without merit.The Queen on the application of Leyton Orient Football Club Limited v London Legacy Development Corporation Administrative (Lewis J) 19 September 2013
