National Trust banning deer hunting with hounds on Exmoor properties – Ban imposed within days of receiving report advocating ban – Challenge by hunting and farming interests alleging unfairness – Whether judicial review proceedings barred by provisions of Charities Act 1993 – Leave refused for want of jurisdiction
The applicants included the masters of the Devon and Somerset Staghounds (DS) and the Quantock Staghounds (Q) which, since their formation, had hunted red deer on 17,000 acres of Exmoor land donated to the respondent, the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or National Beauty (National Trust) under an informal understanding until 1989, and, thereafter, under annual licences the renewal of which until 1997 had been treated as a formality. The donors of the larger parcels of land had expressed the wish that such hunting should continue. In April 1995, following ever louder calls from certain sections of their membership for a ban on hunting, the National Trust commissioned a report on the suffering caused by hunting with hounds as compared with other culling methods. Within days of receiving that report, which came down strongly against hunting with hounds, the National Trust council met on April 10 1997 and resolved that the licences of Q and DS, due to expire at the end of that month, should not be renewed for the new season nor for future seasons.
On July 3 1997 the applicants sought leave to apply for judicial review, claiming (i) that the decision, which had afforded the applicants no opportunity to consider the report and make representations, should be quashed on grounds of unfairness and disregard of legitimate expectations and, (ii) an interim injunction restraining implementation of the ban pending a full hearing.The National Trust opposed the application largely on the ground that being a charity as affirmed in In re Verrall [1916] 1 Ch 100, its actions could not be challenged by process of judicial review, but only by the taking of “charity proceedings” within the meaning of section 33(8) of the Charities Act 1993, which in the case of the applicants could not be taken without the authorisation of the Charity Commissioners or the leave of the court.
Held The application was dismissed.
1. The applicants had correctly asserted that the actions taken by the council were taken in the exercise both of their statutory powers, conferred by statutes dating from 1907, and their ordinary rights as landowners to control activities on their land. However, since they were also acting as charitable trustees within the meaning of section 97 of the Charities Act 1993, those factors could not take the proceedings out of the mandatory requirements of section 33(8) of that Act. The court accordingly had no jurisdiction to entertain the application.
2. But for that objection the applicants, who had a sufficient interest for the purposes of judicial review, would have established a good case for leave to proceed further.
Michael Beloff QC and Tim Corner (instructed by Knight, of Tunbridge Wells) appeared for the applicants; Lindsay Boswell QC and Tim Evans (instructed by Winckworth & Pemberton) appeared for the respondent.
