header-logo header-logo

Wireless Festival site was lawful

20 November 2017
Issue: 7771 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

A London council acted lawfully in hiring out part of Finsbury Park for the 2016 Wireless Festival, the Court of Appeal has held.

Thousands of music fans headed to the north London park in July last year for the three-day festival, headlined by Calvin Harris, Chase & Status and Kygo. However, the event also caused disruption for local dog-walkers and other users of the park.

In R (oao Friends of Finsbury Park) v Haringey LBC [2017] EWCA Civ 1831, the court rejected the argument put forward by the group, Friends of Finsbury Park, that the council did not have the authority to restrict access to any part of the park for the purposes of recreation. The Friends argued that facilitating a major event, to the exclusion of the public generally, was a breach of the council’s duty to hold the park in trust for public recreation.

The court held that s 145 of the Local Government Act 1972, in conferring a power on all local authorities to ‘enclose or set apart any part of a park’ for the provision of entertainment, gave the council authority to exclude the public so the festival could go ahead.

Delivering the lead judgment, Lord Justice Hickinbottom said ‘there does not appear to be a logical reason why London boroughs should be deprived of the powers which non-London local authorities have in respect of entertainment in parks under s 145.

‘[Counsel for the appellant, Richard Harwood QC] suggested that there might be a rationale in the population density in London and/or the size of the capital, but there is nothing to suggest that Parliament had that in mind as a reason to reduce the powers in London’.

Hugh Craddock, a Friends’ case officer, said the decision was ‘hugely disappointing… Some councils have acted as if their parks were their own private land, and rented them out to maximise revenue’.

Issue: 7771 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll