Stanthorne Hall is a Grade II listed country house in Middlewich, supposedly visited by Charles Dickens as he wrote ‘Great Expectations’. On some accounts, his time there served as an inspiration for the character of Miss Havisham.
In R (Holohan) v Secretary of State for Transport and HS2 Ltd [2025] EWHC 23 (Admin), the Claimants were private individuals with an interest in historic properties. They had asked that DfT lease Stanthorne Hall to them, suggesting that they might repair it while living on site, subject to a full repairing and insuring (“FRI”) contract.
The Department for Transport refused to grant a lease and the Claimants challenged that refusal by judicial review. Additionally, they applied for an urgent interim injunction to allow them to enter the property and undertake a structural survey. This too was resisted by DfT and HS2.
Three grounds were advanced:
- That DfT had made an erroneous determination that Crown property could not be leased on an FRI basis and/or failed to have regard to value for money to the taxpayer or the structural condition of the property;
- That the refusal was irrational, given the savings the FRI lease would occasion to the taxpayer, and the obviation by live-in tenants of fire and arson risk, and/or that a legitimate expectation had arisen that an FRI lease would be granted; and
- That the decision-maker at DfT was biased and/or had failed to have proper regard to the NPPF or the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 when making his decision.
Dismissing the claim and all of the Claimant’s applications the High Court held that:
- Properly construed, the reasoning in DfT’s decision did not betray, or depend on, any misunderstanding of the legality of FRI leases. DfT’s decision instead turned on economic considerations and the property’s habitability. DfT had not disregarded these matters and this ground of challenge was deemed “hopeless” (J/20).
- For similar reasons, the decision was not irrational. DfT’s reasons for rejecting the Claimants’ request were based on sound professional judgments and informed by professional reports and surveys. There was no basis for the claimed legitimate expectation, and the claimed risk of arson was not relevant given the property was being actively managed. This ground of challenge was “entirely without foundation” (J/23).
- DfT’s decision-maker was not biased, and had taken care to be as transparent as possible. The NPPF and the statutory controls on listed buildings were not plausibly relevant to DfT’s decision. This ground disclosed “no matters which are remotely arguable” (J/26).
The Judge also dismissed the Claimants’ other applications:
- On the urgent application for interim relief, there was no basis for urgency, and in any case, the request for disclosure of existing surveys was a matter for the Information Commissioner and not the Court, given judicial review is a remedy of last resort. The Claimants arguments were “entirely without foundation” (J/28).
- An application for a protective costs order was also dismissed, on jurisdictional and substantive grounds. The Claimants had not indicated in the Claim Form that the claim was an Aarhus Claim and it was not, in any event, an environmental claim dealing with the use of land. It was rather a claim involving private rights. Nor was the test for a protective costs order under section 88 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 met. The claim did not fall within the category of public interest proceedings. The number of people affected by the decision was low, and there were no points of public importance arising.
Charles Streeten and Armin Solimani are barristers at Francis Taylor Building. They acted for the successful Defendant and Interested Party, the Department for Transport and HS2 Limited, instructed by Shahida Butt of the Government Legal Department.