The Court Update After The Final Day Judicial Review Hearing on BHS challenge to Peterborough City Council on the sale of Ram Mandir to the UKIM, citing the anomalies in the Peterborough Council’s Cabinet Office decision process:

Peterborough City Council’s and the Interested Party, the IP’s (the UKIM, the UK Islamic Mission of Mosques and Islamic Schools Network in the UK) inconsistent evidence under fire after five days of shifting explanations is detailed below by the Bharat Hindu Samaj. The High Court hears claims that the Peterborough Council Cabinet was kept in the dark, the Hindu community was not consulted, and opportunistic arguments that did not reflect formal bid evidence were made to justify an unlawful decision. High Court hears claims that the Cabinet was kept in the dark, the Hindu community was not consulted, and opportunistic arguments that did not reflect formal bid evidence were made to justify an unlawful decision.

Peterborough City Council’s (PCC) handling of the proposed sale of the New England Complex (NEC) came under sustained attack during the final day of a five-day High Court hearing, as counsel for Bharat Hindu Samaj accused the Council of relying on shifting explanations, incomplete information and opportunistic arguments advanced after the event.

The Court heard that Cabinet was never approached by the Property Board to approve the ‘Best and Final Offer’ (BAFO) process; was not told crucial details about the successful bidder’s redevelopment proposals, and was not fully informed of the Hindu community’s concerns before deciding on BAFO. The Court also heard that the Council’s and the Interested Party’s (IP’s) accounts of when redevelopment might begin changed significantly during the proceedings and differed from what was communicated in the formal bid documents.

Justice Morris has reserved judgment. However, the final day laid bare the failings of PCC, including how Cabinet was misled over the sale, key information that should have been disclosed to members but was not and, as a consequence, how the decision reached was unlawful.

BHS argues on the legality of the process

PCC and the IP repeatedly responded to BHS’s case by suggesting that BHS was arguing that the Council had no option but to sell the entire property to the Hindu organisation.

Toby Fisher, counsel for BHS, said that was a “straw man”. BHS’s challenge, he said, concerned the legality of the process—not a demand for a predetermined result.

“The straw man has been held up [that] we say the only option is [that] the Council had to sell to us. That’s not our case.” – Toby Fisher, counsel for BHS

The Court heard that a lawful application of equality duties by the Cabinet could have resulted in a range of possible choices. Cabinet could have demanded more information, reconsidered whether the BAFO process was the best outcome, negotiated directly with BHS, considered a Community Asset Transfer (CAT) or explored selling the complex in parts.

BHS’s case was that those choices were never properly presented because Cabinet was led to believe that the decision to sell—and the method of sale—had already been settled. BHS’s counsel argued that this was not a decision for PCC’s Property Board officers, but for Cabinet to make.

Cabinet ‘was not given the full picture’

Another key concern was what Cabinet was actually told before approving the disposal.

“Cabinet was not provided with any information about the nature of UKIM’s proposals. It was not even told that UKIM proposed a comprehensive redevelopment, let alone when that comprehensive redevelopment was expected to start or finish.” – Toby Fisher, counsel for BHS

Mr Fisher said Cabinet received bare scores but no proper qualitative assessment of what either bidder proposed, the disadvantages of the bids or the consequences for existing occupiers.

The IP argued that, if this were true, it would mean providing Cabinet with the entirety of the bidding materials.

In response, Mr Fisher said:

“To burn [the IP’s] straw man, look at the officers’ own evaluation of the bid.”

BHS argued that, while not perfect, this material would have allowed Cabinet to understand what was being proposed and why one bid had been preferred. Instead, the elected decision-makers were asked to approve the sale without being told that UKIM proposed a comprehensive redevelopment or when it might begin.

Inconsistent redevelopment claims in year 2035, 9 years from now

One of the sharpest contradictions or “opportunistic arguments” that emerged during the hearing concerned 2035 the date that PCC and the IP argued redevelopment was due to commence—the date initially put before the Court as the point at which redevelopment was planned

At the hearing on 11 June, PCC’s counsel Catherine Rowlands said:

“There is also an email from the IP about their intentions in relation to the development, which is not planned until 2035, nine years from now.”

Justice Morris sought direct confirmation:

“So my note is, in the short to medium term, the Landlord and Tenant Act protections were very real because the IP was not going to redevelop the site, the property, for some considerable time, until 2035. Okay. That is your case?”

Ms Rowlands answered “Yes.”

By 13 July, however, PCC’s position had changed. Ms Rowlands told the Court:

“It is not part of my case that redevelopment will not take place until 2035.”

She later said:

“This date of 2035 is taking too much importance.”

The Council’s case was subsequently narrowed to a much smaller proposition: UKIM could not immediately “change the locks”, as stated by Ms Rowlands, and did not intend to displace BHS immediately after acquiring the site.

The judge recalled that he had asked a specific question about the 2035 position and identified why it mattered:

“This point turns on the question of whether redevelopment is within their sights or a long way off.”

That question goes to the heart of PCC’s claimed protection against displacement. If redevelopment was a distant possibility, BHS might have meaningful security. If redevelopment was intended in the short or medium term, the purchaser could seek to oppose renewal of BHS’s tenancy.

Toby Fisher further provided pointed to factual evidence that there was nothing in the IP’s formal bid documents or in what was put forward to Cabinet to suggest that redevelopment would not happen until 2035, and that everything in fact indicated that the redevelopment process would commence once the site was acquired. As highlighted by Mr Fisher, this gave little protection against eviction and was the opposite of what had previously been put forward to Cabinet as a mitigating factor through tenancy law.

“To the extent that Cabinet relied on advice that 1954 Act tenancies were a “key mitigation” for displacement risk, it had no relevant understanding of the fact that UKIM intended to redevelop; was entitled to resist renewal under section 30(1)(f) of the 1954 Act on the grounds of redevelopment; or when UKIM’s redevelopment was likely to commence.”

Toby Fisher, counsel for BHS, further argued that the IP’s claimed intention not to redevelop until 2035 affected the formal scores awarded to BHS and the IP in the bid evaluation:

“That was then relevant when it came to comparative bid evaluation: officers noted that the fact that the Claimant was reliant on securing external finance and managing phased refurbishments could “potentially extend timelines.” That was considered to be a negative aspect of the Claimant’s bid. By contrast, and presumably on the basis of the officers’ understanding that the IP had a 5-year redevelopment plan, and sufficient funds to deliver it, officers recorded no concerns about what is now claimed to be a redevelopment timeline that extends well beyond 2035.”

To the extent that Cabinet relied on advice that 1954 Act tenancies were a “key mitigation” for displacement risk, it had no relevant understanding of the fact that UKIM intended to redevelop; was entitled to resist renewal under section 30(1)(f) of the 1954 Act on the grounds of redevelopment; or when UKIM’s redevelopment was likely to commence.”

A false impression—to the Council or the Court?

BHS relied on the bidder’s contemporaneous documents. They referred to transition planning within 30 days of exchange (not completion), short-term licences lasting approximately six to twelve months, relocation assistance and statutory compensation.

Mr Fisher said those documents were wholly inconsistent with the suggestion that redevelopment would not begin for another nine years.

“Read as a whole, the evidence the IP provided to PCC officers in support of their bid strongly indicated an intention to commence redevelopment works at the property as soon as possible after completion, subject to planning and financing.”

He then delivered one of the most serious submissions of the hearing:

“Either the bid conveyed a false impression about its redevelopment intentions to the Council, or a false impression has been conveyed to this Court.”

It crystallised BHS’s case that the account presented during the litigation could not be reconciled with the documents used to secure the Council’s approval.

The ‘rabbit from the hat’

PCC also relied on events occurring after Cabinet’s decision, including BHS’s later service of a statutory notice, to argue that the temple’s security of tenure was real rather than illusory.

BHS said the point arrived extremely late and could not rewrite what officers or Cabinet understood when the sale was approved.

“This argument has been raised extremely late in the day. Unfortunately for the Defendant, it is not the rabbit from the hat the Defendant considers it to be.” – Toby Fisher, counsel for BHS

Mr Fisher said post-decision events could not retrospectively supply Cabinet with information it never had:

“Ex post facto evidence provided by way of submission does not change the fact that neither officers nor Cabinet had any information before them at the time of the decision to justify a conclusion that the 1954 Act protections were real on account of the fact that no redevelopment was likely for an extended period.”

In plain terms, BHS argued that PCC could not repair the original decision by constructing a new explanation after the sale had already been approved.

PCC admitted it: no consultation with the Hindu community

The hearing also focused on PCC’s equality assessment and its failure, according to BHS, to confront the religious consequences of displacement. The transcripts of PCC’s own meetings reveal that the absence of consultation was not speculation. It was admitted in public.

At the January Scrutiny hearing, Councillor Hilliar asked ward councillor Asim Mahmood a direct question: “Did you consult with the Hindu community using the building in your ward?”

“The short answer to that is no.” – Councillor Asim Mahmood, Labour, North Ward

When Councillor Hilliar asked whether, given their responsibility to represent the whole ward and the high-profile nature of the decision, it would have been reasonable for ward councillors themselves to reach out and seek engagement, his answer was again unequivocal:

“No.” – Councillor Asim Mahmood, Labour, North Ward

He said councillors felt that approaching the situation would be “uninviting” and that there appeared to be a barrier to communication. He nevertheless maintained that it was appropriate for him to support the disposal despite not being fully engaged with the temple, its community or how the building was being used.

The same issue returned when Cabinet reconsidered the sale on 10 February. A BHS member asked why no consultation phase with BHS—the affected community—had been initiated before the Council moved from negotiation to competitive bidding or as part of the bid process.

Councillor Mohammed Jamil’s answer did not dispute the lack of formal consultation. Instead, he said:

“Formal consultation—a formal consultation—is not a mandatory requirement of the equality impact assessment process.” – Councillor Mohammed Jamil, Cabinet Member for Finance & Corporate Governance, Labour

He said the Council had relied on information from relevant services, community officers and the bidding process, and referred to the need to preserve fairness and impartiality between bidders.

When challenged that a desk-based equality assessment excluding proactive consultation with the affected community was flawed and legally vulnerable, Councillor Jamil replied:

“I am satisfied that our officers acted within the rules and within the spirit of the law and the law itself when deciding how the process was going to proceed with this.”

PCC’s own published issue record identified the consultation process as involving “Property Board, CLT and CPF”. It did not identify BHS, Mandir worshippers or Peterborough’s wider Hindu community as consultees.

Toby Fisher’s submission to the High Court therefore echoed what had already been admitted in the Council chamber:

“Despite the Claimant’s express and persistent requests, there was zero engagement with the Claimant or with the Hindu community of Peterborough on the potential impacts.”

The concern was not new. In January, the Council’s own Scrutiny Committee concluded by a majority that Cabinet had not possessed the full material information required to make its decision. It sent the matter back and demanded the scoring methodology, full scoring details and equality impact assessments.

The Committee also said the Council should actively ensure that the BHS community was not displaced and left without a home.

BHS argued that when the decision returned to Cabinet, the community was still not meaningfully consulted about the impact of placing a Hindu temple under the ownership of another organisation with plans to redevelop the site.

A discrimination argument—with five minutes to go on Day 5

PCC argued that refusing to sell to the IP for reasons connected with religion could itself amount to unlawful discrimination. BHS said this misrepresented its case: it had never asked the Council to reject a purchaser because it was Muslim. This is also a point BHS feels is being misrepresented by certain individuals who want to advance a religious confrontation narrative. BHS runs the Ram Mandir at the premises which the PCC wants to desecrate and yet in the final 5 minutes of hearing the Mandir Committee is being accused of religious discrimination?

Mr Fisher said Cabinet could have demanded more information, changed the disposal process or considered a split sale without making any decision on the basis of the IP’s religion. When PCC advanced the discrimination argument near the end of the five-day hearing, the judge asked whether it appeared in PCC’s written submissions. After being told it had been made orally, he observed:

“A little bit late in the day, with five minutes to go.” – Justice Morris

‘Did they say that?’

The judge also questioned how the IP’s intentions were being presented. When he was told what

UKIM supposedly intended to do with the property in the period before 2035, Justice Morris asked: “Did they say that?”

He added:

“I might have expected to see neutrally what was stated by your client about what they intended to do.”

The remarks were made during argument and were not findings of misconduct. They nevertheless highlighted the Court’s concern to distinguish what the documents actually said from the interpretation later placed upon them.

A temple is not a shop

The final reply ended by bringing the case back to what BHS says has been lost in the technical arguments: the proposed displacement concerns a consecrated Hindu temple, not an ordinary commercial tenant.

“A consecrated Hindu temple is not merely a building from which religious activities are conducted. Once consecrated, it becomes sacred in itself.”

“The deities and idols are not items that can simply be packed up, transported and reinstalled as though this were an ordinary relocation exercise.”

“This is not a shop or business where, with enough notice, one can transfer stock, goodwill or a customer base to alternative premises and carry on elsewhere.”

Mr Fisher said the difference between displacement after six months or eighteen months did not answer the real harm. The community would still live under the shadow of the temple’s dismantling, the removal of consecrated deities and the loss of a sacred space around which its religious life had been built.

The cost of a shifting case

BHS said the late arguments, altered positions and post-decision explanations had increased the complexity and expense of the litigation.

“My clients are expending a huge amount of money as a consequence of the defendants’ conduct in this litigation.” – Toby Fisher, counsel for BHS

Mr Fisher indicated that BHS might make submissions concerning unreasonable conduct when it came to costs. BHS feels the conduct has been unreasonable and, given that this is from a public body, it has a right to expect better conduct. From the hearing, it was also unclear why the IP had to take part in these proceedings when Peterborough City Council was expending huge amounts of taxpayers’ money on a large legal team. It could perhaps raise questions about the confidence the IP had in PCC’s position. In total, there were four barristers in opposition to Mr Fisher over a period of five days at the High Court.

Judge acknowledges importance of case

At the conclusion of the five-day hearing, the judge thanked everyone attending court for the courteous and calm manner in which they had conducted themselves, despite the difficult heat. He acknowledged that the case had occupied five full days of detailed argument and indicated that any further written submissions must be strictly focused. Toby Fisher separately drew the Court’s attention to the huge public support for BHS and the considerable public interest in both the Council’s decision and the outcome of the claim.

It must also be observed that, throughout the five days, members of UKIM and BHS engaged with one another informally, warmly and courteously while sitting in close proximity in court. Both communities recognised the importance of the matter and demonstrated through their conduct that this case should not be portrayed as a Hindu-versus-Muslim dispute. The proceedings concern the legality of the Council’s decision-making—not relations between the two faith communities.

Judgment reserved

At the close of the hearing, Justice Morris said five days in court had been sufficient, although there might be one or two focused loose ends. He indicated that if the defendants maintained that UKIM would still have won under an alternative weighting of the bid scores and the sensitivity testing, they should provide the calculations. The judge reserved judgment.

Until that judgment is delivered, the central questions remain unanswered: Was Cabinet given the information it needed? Were the equality consequences confronted honestly and rigorously? Did the claimed tenancy protection bear any relationship toprovide any meaningful protection given the redevelopment plans? And can explanations developed after the decision rescue a process that BHS says was unlawful from the start?

*************
BHS has tried to address misinformation by answering some queries and doubts below:

Unit 6, New England Complex, Rock Rd, Peterborough PE1 3BU
Phone 01733 315241 https://bharathindusamaj.co.uk

Why Bharat Hindu Samaj says it was badly treated

BHS says a community that had served Peterborough for more than 50 years was pushed into a competitive disposal process without meaningful consultation on the religious and human impact; that elected Cabinet members were not given the full qualitative picture; and that important explanations and records emerged only after the decision. PCC and UKIM contested BHS’s case. The Court has not yet ruled on the allegations.

Frequently asked questions

Is this a Hindu-versus-Muslim dispute?

NO. ABSOLUTLEY NOT. BBHS’s dispute is with Peterborough City Council’s decision-making process, not with UKIM or the Muslim community. BHS warned the Council repeatedly, before the competitive process began, that placing two faith communities in competition risked division. PCC should have implemented a cohesions and community plan but has so far failed to do so. This has led to inflammatory comments on social media against both the Hindu and Muslim communities. And these have not been dealt with.

During all five days in court, BHS and UKIM representatives sat close together and treated one another warmly and courteously. BHS condemns racist or offensive comments directed at any individual or community.

What is this dispute really about?

It is about whether the Council acted lawfully, fairly and transparently. BHS did not argue that it had to win the property. It says Cabinet could have asked for more information, used a different disposal route, negotiated directly with BHS or divided the site differently.

What is a Community Asset Transfer, in simple terms?

A Community Asset Transfer, or CAT, is a route by which a council transfers land or a building to a community organisation so it can continue delivering public benefit. The transfer may be below market value, at a reduced price, for a peppercorn rent or sometimes free of charge. The missing money is not treated as a gift: it is justified by the social, economic and environmental value the community organisation provides.

Why was the CAT route important to BHS?

For years the Council itself dealt with BHS on community-transfer terms. In 2017 it offered

Units 6 and 7 for £1 with a £250,000 capital contribution towards repairs running into the MILLIONS. This was then retracted by Peterborough City Council. Further Heads of Terms followed. BHS says the CAT route mattered because it allowed Cabinet to compare cash with the continuing value of a temple and community centre, rather than treating the decision as an ordinary commercial sale.

Other local community centres in the Gladstone area have been disposed at nil value and have been given £100k’s in in contributions for maintenance. Some of these buildings were state of the art, worth millions. But BHS was offered a asbestos ridden, ramshackle building on considerably different terms.

Why do councils subsidise community-centre rents?

Because a well-used community centre can save the public sector far more than the rent it might collect. Volunteers provide early help, reduce isolation, support health and wellbeing, assist families and young people, prevent crises and strengthen community cohesion. PCC’s own CAT policy allows reduced prices, peppercorn rents or free use where the public benefit justifies it. Council records identify many venues in the Gladstone area as occupied at peppercorn rent and list a number of other community centres for retention or continued review.

How much value does BHS put back into Peterborough each year?

Using its own evidence and established social-value methods, BHS estimates that its current activities return approximately £550,000 to £600,000 of value every year. This includes support for older people, health and wellbeing programmes, youth and education work, food and homelessness support, family assistance, volunteering and community-cohesion activity. BHS says this greatly exceeds the few thousand pounds of annual rent foregone.

How much did BHS bid for the New England Complex?

BHS’s final Best and Final Offer totalled £1.404 million: £900,000 in cash plus £504,000 of quantified social value. The £504,000 figure had been calculated through work involving the Council’s acting Head of Communities. BHS’s separate estimate of £550,000 to £600,000 is the value it says the organisation currently generates each year; it is not the same figure as the social-value element used by PCC even though the updated figure was provided.

How long had BHS been trying to reach an agreement with the Council?

Negotiations dated back to at least 2011. Four formal sets of Heads of Terms were issued between 2017 and 2022—on 31 July 2017, 12 August 2019, 13 April 2021 and 22 May 2022—but PCC failed to proceed to a completed contract. In April 2021 the Council’s Head of Property Services said the final Heads of Terms could proceed to contract and approval by Cabinet. But, again, IT DID NOT HAPPEN.

Did the Council provide a suitable alternative site?

No suitable alternative premises meeting BHS’s present and future needs had been secured. No deliverable replacement was offered with the necessary space, accessibility, permanence and ability to accommodate future growth.

The Scrutiny Committee recommendations to have a 6 month halt to either provide a secured lease or alternative premises was rejected by PCC and the cabinet. This could have averted costly court action.

Has BHS said it would never relocate?

No. BHS says relocation could be considered if genuinely suitable premises and long-term security were provided. But leaving a consecrated Mandir is not a routine property move. The sacred space, deities and rituals cannot be treated like stock in a shop. BHS says the profound spiritual and emotional consequences were not properly understood or investigated by the Council.

How large is the community served by the Community Centre?

It is the only Hindu community hub and religious site within 35 miles. Evidence presented at Scrutiny showed a community of approximately 13,000 to 18,000. Its practical reach is not a neat circle: families travel from parts of Cambridgeshire, Norfolk, Lincolnshire and the Corby area because there is no equivalent nearby facility.

Is the Council simply subsidising visitors from outside Peterborough?

No. Thousands of Peterborough residents use the Mandir and community centre. People who travel from the wider region also support Peterborough’s economy by shopping, eating and attending events locally. BHS says displacement would make many journeys longer, increase environmental impact and redirect spending away from Peterborough’s shops and restaurants—particularly businesses in Millfield where the Indian community uses the local grocery shops.

Did BHS warn the Council against putting two communities against each other?

Yes. Before the bidding process was launched, BHS repeatedly warned that turning the future of a long-established temple into a competition between faith organisations risked religious tension and damaged community cohesion. BHS says those warnings were dismissed, even though the later Cabinet report itself identified faith-related community tension as a high-impact risk with recommendations with a community cohesion plan. To date, this has not been implemented and inflammatory statements targeting both communities continue on social media.

Did the Council properly consider splitting the site?

The Cabinet report listed partial disposal of Units 4–7 and Units 5–7 as options, but dismissed them due to possible tenure conflict. However, councils consider it entirely appropriate to have BHS as a sub-tenant of another faith based community.

BHS says that is not the same as a genuine, evidence-based evaluation or negotiation. BHS submitted bids for the whole site and for smaller groups of units, and says a split could have protected the Mandir while allowing other parts to serve other communities.

Did the Council weigh the legal costs and financial consequences of this route?

The Cabinet report contained general sections on finance, value for money and legal implications. However, the published material did not quantify the risk and cost of a judicial review, compare that cost with the modest rent saving, or measure the continuing annual value that could be lost if BHS’s services were disrupted. BHS says the Council pursued a route that has generated enormous legal expense in the name of saving a relatively small annual property cost.

PCC’s own material shows many landmark buildings being disposed of at losses of £millions.

Additionally, Peterborough City Councils’ own budget shows legal costs spiralling from a very low figure to almost a MILLION pounds. Why and is that value for money ?

Did Cabinet make the decision in 2.5 minutes ?

At the 10 February meeting, the final round of Cabinet-member comments immediately before the vote lasted about two and a half minutes. Once the chair returned to the recommendations, the formal approval took only seconds. BHS says that was strikingly brief for a decision affecting a consecrated temple, thousands of users, a complex multi-millionpound bid process and years of Council commitments.

Why does BHS say it was badly treated?

BHS points to a cumulative pattern: around 14 years of negotiations that did not reach contract; four sets of Heads of Terms; a sudden short competitive process; no meaningful consultation on the religious impact; no suitable replacement; Cabinet receiving headline scores without the full qualitative picture; and important records and explanations emerging after the decision. BHS says a long-established community partner deserved better from a public body.

What was Cabinet allegedly not told?

BHS’s counsel submitted that Cabinet was not told that the other bidder proposed comprehensive redevelopment, when it might start or finish, or what that meant for existing occupiers. BHS says Cabinet received scores without a proper qualitative comparison of the bids, their disadvantages and their likely consequences.

Why did the date 2035 become so important?

PCC’s counsel initially confirmed to the judge that redevelopment was not planned until 2035. At the later hearing, PCC said it was not part of its case that redevelopment would not take place until 2035 and argued that the date was receiving too much importance. BHS says the change mattered because it went directly to whether the temple faced near-term displacement and whether the claimed tenancy protection was meaningful.

“This point turns on the question of whether redevelopment is within their sights or a long way off.”

— Justice Morris, during argument

What did the contemporaneous bid documents indicate?

UKIM’s bid described a Community Users Forum within 30 days of exchange—not completion—and possible short, time-limited licences of around six to twelve months during refurbishment. It also described £4.5 million of investment by 2035. BHS argued that the documents indicated phased redevelopment beginning as soon as practicable, with 2035 as a completion horizon rather than the starting date.

“Either the bid conveyed a false impression about its redevelopment intentions to the

Council, or a false impression has been conveyed to this Court.”

— Toby Fisher, counsel for BHS

What did the judge ask about the account being presented?

When the Interested Party’s intended use of the property before 2035 was described in oral argument, Justice Morris asked, “Did they say that?” He added that he might have expected to see, neutrally, what the client had actually stated it intended to do. These were observations during argument, not findings of misconduct.

Why does BHS challenge the scoring and moderation records?

BHS says its phased refurbishment was treated as a possible delay and scored negatively, while no equivalent concern was recorded about the successful bidder’s later-claimed extended timetable. The internal Moderation Note recording a meeting of 6 November 2025 was prepared on 17 May 2026, during the litigation. PCC said it was based on underlying material; BHS says it was not a contemporaneous record and should not be presented as one.

Was the Hindu community consulted about the impact?

BHS says there was no meaningful consultation on the religious, equality and displacement consequences. At Scrutiny, ward councillor Asim Mahmood answered “no” when asked whether he had consulted the Hindu community using the building. At Cabinet, Councillor

Mohammed Jamil said formal consultation was not mandatory. BHS’s counsel told the High Court there had been “zero engagement” on the potential impacts despite repeated requests.

Why can later explanations not repair the original decision?

BHS says the legal question is what Cabinet knew and considered when it approved the sale. Arguments or events arising afterwards cannot retrospectively give Cabinet information it never had. When PCC advanced a further discrimination argument near the end of the fiveday hearing, the judge observed that it was “a little bit late in the day, with five minutes to go”.

What has the Court decided?

At the conclusion of the documents reviewed, Justice Morris had reserved judgment and had not ruled on the merits. The judge thanked everyone attending for their calm and courteous conduct. Until judgment is delivered, BHS’s allegations remain allegations and the Court’s questions during argument are not findings of misconduct.

Ms Gauri Fauzdar
Trustee Spokesperson on Behalf of the BHS and Ram Mandir Peterborough Trustees maybe contacted on gaurifaujdar@gmail.com and BHS office telephone 01733 315241

All Temples Trustees in UK are requested to debate the above in their Board meetings to be aware the changing political landscape of several Governments Cabinet Offices and their decisions.

[A national umbrella body representing one million British Hindus of all denominations through their temples and cultural organisations, estd. 1994.]