header-logo header-logo

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

Wireless Festival site was lawful

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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll