Grimsby Institute loses High Court battle to reclaim £3.7m
THE Grimsby Institute has lost its High Court battle to claw back the £3.7 million it lost when funding for its new £140 million campus was pulled.
The institute spent £3.7 million on architects and other contractors in preparation for the redevelopment after its bid for funding from the Learning And Skills Council (LSC)was "approved in principle."
-
But, in July 2009, the Institute was one of several further education colleges to have funding for their rebuilding projects withdrawn after the LSC ran into difficulty.
The LSC decided to use its remaining cash to reimburse colleges left facing insolvency by the funding withdrawal.
The institute was not one of them, and it brought a claim against the LSC for its "irrational" decision, which left it £3.7 million out of pocket.
But the institute's legal challenge was yesterday dismissed by Judge Peter Langan QC who, although critical of the funding "debacle", said the LSC's decision "cannot be stigmatised as irrational".
Associate principal Roger McCracken said: "We are very disappointed by the outcome of the judicial review application and leading counsel has advised there are grounds for appeal as there appears to have been a fundamental misunderstanding of our case at the trial.
"An application for leave to appeal will be heard on September 7 and the governors will then make a decision whether to proceed with the appeal process."
Meanwhile, institute staff have been assured they will be paid today. All staff were supposed to be paid their monthly salaries yesterday, but a "technical malfunction" prevented this.
Phyliss Downs, personnel and payroll manager at the institute, said: "We apologise to all of our staff for any inconvenience this may cause and would like to thank everyone for their understanding and patience.
"If this slight delay in payment has caused any of our staff to incur charges from their banks or building societies, if they bring proof of this to the personnel department we will obviously cover these costs."
6 Comments
View all
by Duignan, Grimsby
Friday, September 03 2010, 10:58AM
“Kev,
Go on to BAILLII.org (The British and Irish Legal Information Institute) you can read the Judges complete summing up.”
by Kev, Grimsby
Thursday, September 02 2010, 4:28PM
“The witness accused of being argumentive wouldnt happen to be the director of facilities would it???”
by Tiger65, Up in the clouds!!!
Wednesday, September 01 2010, 4:55PM
“So what type of business would spend £3.7million on works to make the main rebuild ready, when the money had not been formally allocated?
At the very first meeting between the GI and the public (when the new build was announced), I asked the question relating to funding. I was told then and also on several further occasions that he money had indeed been ¿ring-fenced¿. How wrong they were, the residents of Park Ward, who were very vocal against this project, contacted the Learning Skills Council and were told that the money was certainly not guaranteed. The money was in fact, ear-marked for this project, but further criteria had to be met.
This shows the arrogance of the senior managers at the GI (including Mr. Khan & Co, most of who are now no longer there), in thinking that they would be guaranteed University status and the money would come rolling in.
Further to this there were several ¿gifts¿ from the Council to GI, one of which was the building along Hereford Ave and a section of associated land (which now forms part of the temporary car park ¿ temporary meaning in excess of 2 years!).
Will this building now be returned to be sold off, or will GI pay for it?
I leave the rest to your imagination!!!!”
by Grimbarian, Grimsby
Wednesday, September 01 2010, 1:00PM
“Notice the key words "approved in principle". That doesn't sound very definite to me. If the college choose to waste £3.7 million on something that is only "approved in principle", then it's their own fault.”
by Chris, Cleethorpes
Wednesday, September 01 2010, 10:56AM
“The claim seems to be about a desire not to lose face over a ridiculously expensive and pointless expansion plan that was not properly thought out in the first place.
Anyone who reads the judgement will come to the conclusion that the Institute's case is more than a little thin and like Duigan says the evidence didn't stand up too well. In fact the Institute doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on.
Remember as well that this is one government agency trying to get money back from another government agency through the courts and we all know that a legal action is far from cheap. So, please don't waste any more taxpayers' money on this futile pie in the sky business Mr McCracken.”