High Court slams council for “act of retaliation” against PI law firm which sued it

Manchester Civil Justice Centre: solicitors received support from Law Society

A local authority’s refusal to offer a law firm tenant a new lease was “an act of retaliation, pure and simple”, to punish the firm for bringing personal injury claims against it, the High Court found last week.

Upholding a claim for judicial review, HHJ Stephen Davies found that Blackpool Borough Council had abused its powers when it refused to renew the lease North Solicitors had in one of its properties.

The council explicitly told the firm, founded by Joanna Trafford, that it was on a “blacklist”, and in an e-mail complained that its corporate insurance policy was reaching “unprecedented levels” as a result of an increasing number of highway tripping claims brought against it.

The e-mail continued: “In broad terms the council’s view is that the practice of North Solicitors, and other similar personal injury lawyers, runs contrary to the interests of the council. We cannot dictate the nature of the work that you do, but we are in a position to review who resides in our tenanted properties.”

The Administrative Court in Manchester found that the decision was illegal, irrational and procedurally unfair. Though the council did have a wide discretion, and could properly take into account the nature of a tenant’s business, in this case the only consideration to which it had regard was “its desire to punish the claimant”.

HHJ Davies emphasised that North Solicitors had doing nothing wrong in pursuing claims against the council. “The exercise of a power with the sole or the dominant intention of punishing the claimant and subjecting her firm to a detriment, in circumstances where there was no evidence that the claimant was actually doing anything at all unlawful or improper, was in my judgment the intentionally improper exercise of the power conferred on the defendant and the exercise of that power for unauthorised purposes.”

The court also received a letter from the Law Society in support of the solicitors, describing the council’s actions as “inimical to the rule of law”.

The society added: “It is of serious concern that a public body would seek to use its general powers to act so as to punish and/or dissuade solicitors from representing individuals in claims against the state.”

Ms Trafford said: “I am relieved to have been vindicated by the High Court, and grateful to have received the backing of the legal profession.

“While everyone has their own views of lawyers, they are necessary to protect people’s rights and stand up against abuses of power by government. The High Court in this judgment has held that Blackpool Council, in deliberately seeking to punish me for representing claimants, was itself abusing its power.”

A council spokesman said it was “bitterly disappointed” by the ruling.

Though the remedy has still to be decided, the judge said he was minded simply to quash the council’s decision not to accept any application from the firm for a new tenancy.

    Readers Comments

  • Barry Smith says:

    This is a joke, it’s the council’s building and they should be able to control exactly who is in it.

    The legal profession is ridiculous.

  • Clearly a High Court Judge disagrees with you.

    Actually the building was built using European ERDF money and there are selection criteria as to tenants and other criteria which ensure the building is used for the local good rather than Blackpool Council’s benefit.

    What is important here is that the business provides stable economic growth to the local community and full time employment to 7 local people which is the intended aim of the Enterprise Centre.

    Perhaps if Blackpool Council don’t want to be sued, then they should use tax payers money to improve the highways rather than waste it on legal costs in this case.

  • Chris Jenkins says:

    If this had gone in the council’s favour, it would have far reaching consequences. What would be there to stop them abusing their power on other matters?

  • Gareth jones says:

    100 million % the council refused it because they took the council to the dry cleaners I need to know who this solicitor is I won’t to sue the council now

Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Keeping the conversation going beyond Pride Month

As I reflect on all the celebrations of Pride Month 2024, I ask myself why there remains hesitancy amongst LGBTQ+ staff members about when it comes to being open about their identity in the workplace.

Third-party managed accounts: Your key questions answered

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has given strong indications that it is headed towards greater restrictions on law firms when it comes to handling client money.

Understanding vicarious trauma in the legal workplace

Vicarious trauma can happen to anyone who works with clients who have experienced trauma such as domestic or other violence, child abuse, sexual assault, torture or being a refugee.

Loading animation