Mr. Nicholas Bowen Q.C. who represented Andrew Williams against Shropshire Council in the Judicial Review has issued a statement regarding the case.
“Recent internet publications by the Defendant (Shropshire Council) and the Chief Executive of Shropshire Council have been drawn to the Claimant’s attention. The regrettable tone of some of those publications aside, counsel for the Claimant feel duty bound to respond to those publications; parts of which are factually inaccurate:
- The first offer to compromise the proceedings came from the Defendant (Shropshire Council), not the Claimant.
- At no stage did Counsel for the Claimant (Andrew Williams) suggest that the proceedings should be compromised on the basis that he would not seek his legal costs from the Defendant. It was the Claimant’s case that the Council should pay inter partes costs given that the Defendant had agreed to a quashing order and to a reconsideration according to law so costs should follow the event. However, the Defendant’s unwavering position communicated via their counsel was that it would only agree to quash the decision and reconsult if there was no order as to costs. The 1st justification for the quashing of the decision to relocate the library being the lack of a lawful policy and assessment of need and the Council’s consequent breach of s7 of the Public Museums and Libraries Act 1964.
- The Defendant (Shropshire Council) has at no stage during these proceedings invited the Claimant or CSLSG to submit an expression of interest to run the Library pursuant to the Localism Act 2011. Indeed, the 2nd reason the Defendant was prepared to accept that its decision was unlawful was that it had not properly directed the Claimant’s attention to the possibility of submitting an expression of interest under the Localism Act 2011, and/or that it had failed to treat CSLSG’s proposal to keep the library where it is as an expression of interest pursuant to s81 of the 2011 Act.”.