IN THE HIGH COURT QBD ADMINISTRATIVE COURT IN BIRMINGHAM APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) Title of case: Case no. R ((1) Sky Blues Sports 8 Leisure Ltd (2) ARVO Master Fund CO/4432/2013 Limited (3) Coventry City Football Club (Holdings) Ltd)) v Coventry City Council Interested Parties (1) Arena Coventry Ltd (2) The Alan Edwards Higgs Charity Heard/tried before (insert name of Judge): The Honourable Mr Justice Hickinbottom Court Birmingham CJC Ct 17 Nature of hearing Partly rolled up application for judicial review of the decision of the Defendant Council to loan the First Interested Party £14.4m Date of judgment: 30 June 2014 Results of hearing (attach copy of order): All applications refused. Application for permission to appeal to the CA was made by the Claimant and was refused. Reasons for decision (to be completed by the Judge): The Claimants cannot seek permission to appeal in respect of those grounds for which refused permission to proceed. They must go to the Court of Appeal on those grounds, if they wish to pursue them, In respect of the grounds upon which they obtained permission, but had the substantive application refused, the Claimants contend that I erred in (1) in the exercise of my discretion to find that the ground that the Defendant failed to take into account specified material considerations was a ground for which the Claimants had not obtained permission,(2) making the findings of fact I made, and (3) the law, and in particular the application of the market economy operator test for the purposes of State aid. The grounds are very long; but I can deal with them relatively briefly. As to (1), not only was this decision a case management decision well within my discretion to make, in the event I found that the ground was in fact unarguable. In those circumstances, granting permission to appeal would clearly be inappropriate. As to (2), the Claimants contend that I made "numerous and serious errors of fact". A judge does not err simply because he does not draw factual conclusions which one party urges upon him. As I made clear in the judgment (at [30]), I did not accept the picture which the Claimants sought to paint. I set out my factual conclusions, and the evidence upon which they were based. The Claimants' real complaint is that my findings of fact is were a ainst the weight of evidence; but that is not the same thin as makin findin s without any evidential basis. I do not accept that I was not entitled to make the factual findings I did make, on the basis of the evidence before me; and I do not consider there is a realistic possibility that the Claimants would persuade the Court of Appeal that I was not entitled to make any of the material findings I did make. As to (3), the law as to State aid so far as relevant to this claim was and is uncontroversial. do not accept that I failed to take into account material European cases or guidance, or that I misunderstood them or gave undue weight to any of them. The question I had to answer was a simple one: would any rational private investor in the same circumstances as the Council have entered into the loan transaction on the same terms as the Council in fact entered into. For the reasons I set out, in my judgment, the answer to that question was "Yes". Despite the length of the grounds of appeal (all of which I have considered carefully), I do not consider there is a realistic possibility of the Claimant persuading the Court of Appeal that I erred in approach or that I was not entitled to draw that conclusion. Even if the grounds are unarguable, the Claimants contend that there are other compelling grounds for granting permission, because this case is novel in terms of the private market operator test. However, the Claimants do not suggest that the legal principles are in any material way controversial, and there is thus no purpose in the Court of Appeal considering the case if an appeal is unarguable. Indeed, the decision under challenge was made in January 2013; and, given the adverse effect of the delay to the public interest as well as the private interests of many, it is in everyone's interests (including th~s~of the Claimants and SISU) not to prolong matters. For those reasons, I refuse permission to appeal. Judge's signature: mss-' ~i~^~=-~~~ '~ ``~~ ''~ ~~ Note to the Applicant: When completed this form should be lodged in the Civil Appeals Office on a •-`~ to appeal 18 July 2014 renewed application for leave or when setting down an appeal