Leeds United Football Club Ltd v West Yorkshire Police
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- SIR DAVID EADY
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
LUFC contested WYP's broader SPS charges beyond the club's owned, leased, or controlled areas. The court ruled in 2012 that such charges were unlawful, upheld in 2013. The primary issue was determining a fair rebate calculation method, focusing on disputed land areas like the 'Lowfields Triangle'. Sir David Eady emphasized accurate methodologies to avoid overcharging.
Judgment
Sir David Eady :
In July 2012, I ruled that the Claimant (“LUFC”) had been charged for special police services (“SPS”) over the three preceding football seasons, in respect of home matches, on a basis that was in part unlawful: [2012] EWHC 2113 (QB) . It thus became necessary to find a methodology by which to calculate the appropriate rebate. It did not prove possible for the parties to agree a formula. Each, therefore, proposed a distinct methodology and sought to persuade the court of its merits. These proposals yield answers which Mr Beloff QC described as “dramatically” different. It is now for me to consider their respective merits and to try to find a means by which to calculate figures which approximate as closely as possible to the loss actually suffered. In the meantime, the Defendant (“WYP”) has paid LUFC £1,238,816.61 which is said to represent the total loss including interest. LUFC, on the other hand, seeks a further £844,016.36 plus interest (to include claims in respect of 2012-13 and 2013-14).
Although the background is fully set out in my earlier judgment (and in that of the Master of the Rolls on appeal) I need briefly to summarise it so that the rival methodologies can be understood in context.
Following the onset of the recession, WYP decided to try and recover more for the public purse in respect of their regular deployments for matches at Elland Road. They sought to charge not only for policing within the stadium (as had been the position up to the 2008-9 season) but also over a wider geographical area (described as the “extended footprint”). The relevant area extended more widely than any land owned, leased or controlled by LUFC. It was thought by WYP that, since the need to police the fans and visitors in such areas was attributable to LUFC matches, it was only fair that it should foot the bill rather than meeting the cost out of diminishing public funds. It was ultimately held, however, by me and by the Court of Appeal on 7 March 2013, that a proportion of these policing services fell within the WYP’s ordinary responsibility for public order policing and that SPS could only properly be charged (under s.25 of the Police Act 1996) in respect of services that were provided on land owned, leased and controlled by LUFC: see also Harris v Sheffield United Football Club Ltd [1988] 2 QB 77 .
It thus became necessary to find a means of filtering out those parts of the SPS paid for by LUFC which strayed impermissibly into e