Sacha Lord loses legal battle against government to reopen indoor hospitality before 17th May
The judgement came just hours before a SAGE report emerged that stated that "eating out in any food outlet or restaurant was not associated with increased odds" of becoming infected with coronavirus (COVID-19).
The High Court has ruled in favour of the government in a legal challenge over its decision to delay the reopening of indoor hospitality until 17th May.
The judgement comes after Greater Manchester’s Night Time Economy Adviser, Sacha Lord – who is also the co-founder of Parklife Festival and Warehouse Project – and Punch Taverns founder Hugh Osmond, notably joined forces last month to take the government to court over hospitality restrictions as they argued that bars, restaurants and cafes should be allowed to provide indoor service on the same date as non-essential retail reopens.
It’s estimated that the delay in reopening indoor hospitality could end up costing the sector £7 billion over the five weeks.
The case to permit the reopening of indoor hospitality was expedited at the start of last month, and a response was initially supposed to be provided on the week commencing Monday 19th April – but was delayed.
ADVERTISEMENT
Following the delays, Mr Lord – who has continuously claimed over the last couple of months that the government has been unable to provide evidence for their reasoning behind the roadmap, and has insisted he will share the documents once received – took to social media last week to confirm that the case was with a High Court Judge and he was “expecting news imminently”.
He stressed that “every day counts” and that it’s about “data NOT dates”.
ADVERTISEMENT
Legal update:
We were informed a ruling would be made the week commencing the 19th.
We have now been informed, a High Court Judge was not available last week and it is now, at last, sat with him.
And after nearly a week of awaiting response, the High Court ruled in favour of the government in the case R (On the Application of Sacha Lord and Hugh Osmond) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, saying that COVID-19 justifies a cautious approach.
The judgement came just hours before a SAGE report emerged that stated that “eating out in any food outlet or restaurant was not associated with increased odds” of becoming infected with coronavirus (COVID-19), and while it’s said that the report was not disclosed by the defence during the legal proceedings, in the overview, the Honourable Mr Justice Julian Knowles dismissed the call for Judicial Review to bring forward indoor reopenings as “academic”.
“This case is not ‘academic’ for an industry that is losing £200m every day it remains closed,” Hugh Osmand commented.
ADVERTISEMENT
“For the over three million people who work in our industry, or for the tens of thousands of businesses, suppliers, landlords and contractors forced into bankruptcy by government measures, our legal action gave them a fighting chance,
“Yet once again in 2021, the strong arm of the state has come crushing down on hope and aspiration.
“The judge said that Covid ‘justifies a precautionary or cautious approach on the part of the government’, but when a crucial SAGE report is ignored, this goes far beyond caution, and questions need to be asked about when this advice was sought and why this important evidence was not disclosed.
“I am deeply concerned that the judge’s main reason for refusing judicial review was because our claim ‘was not brought promptly’, even though we issued our claim days after the roadmap became law on 25th March, with the court taking a month to provide its ruling.
“This judgment drives a coach and horses through our normal constitutional processes.
ADVERTISEMENT
“Are we really being told that we should have issued legal proceedings on the basis of a Prime Minister’s press conference and a yet to be published set of laws?
“Our democracy should be better than this”.
In a normal legal case, non-disclosure of evidence like the Sage report would wreck the Government's case. But, after considering it over the weekend, our legal team advise it is not grounds to challenge the Judicial Review decision. We will be reviewing other legal options.
The Gov’t FAILED to disclose a SAGE report, confirming that during the whole pandemic, only 226 cases were associated to Hospitality. pic.twitter.com/bQlRquPCW5
Commenting on the decision, Sacha Lord said in a statement: “We are disappointed with the outcome.
“While this fight has always been an uphill battle, made harder by the government’s delaying tactics and refusal to mediate, we are pleased that the case has shone a light on the hospitality sector and the unfair and unequal guidance within the recovery roadmap [as] through our legal challenges, we have achieved significant outcomes for the sector, abolishing the substantial meal requirement with our previous court action and lobbying hard to remove with the 10pm curfew.
“Both of these results have had a hugely positive impact on operators nationwide who have been unfairly treated throughout this crisis and undoubtedly saved many jobs throughout the industry.
ADVERTISEMENT
“Through our legal action, we have sent a clear, strong message direct to the heart of government [and] we will continue to advocate for those who have been unfairly impacted throughout this crisis, and despite the outcome, we will continue to hold the government to account and demand evidence-based decisions, rather than those drafted without detailed analysis or based on bias or whim”.
Flickr
He continued: “The hospitality sector has gone above and beyond to implement measures which provide safe, secure environments – measures which were, let’s not forget, advised as safe by the government themselves and which the court already deemed to be effective based on the evidence we provided in support of our previous judicial review.
“There are thousands of bars, pubs and restaurants across the country which are still closed and whose owners and employees are struggling financially due to these unfair restrictions.
“For the 40% minority who do have outdoor space, this weekend’s weather has only exacerbated the ongoing struggles the industry has continually faced, and I’ve heard of countless pubs that have been forced to close early or who have had zero customers due to the bad weather.
“Not only does this severely impact on business and sector recovery, but on the staff whose wages, and ability to pay rent, food and bills, are at the mercy of something as unpredictable as the weather”.
Featured Image – Weird & Wonderful
News
The EFL Championship set to expand playoffs to six teams in controversial move
Danny Jones
The English Football League (EFL) has confirmed that it will be expanding the Championship playoffs to six teams moving forward.
In one of the biggest changes, not just to the second tier but the domestic football pyramid in some time, it’s so far divided opinion – and that’s putting it mildly.
Starting from next season, the Championship will see half a dozen compete in its final knockout phase, meaning that the conclusion to the 2026/27 campaign has the potential to be even tastier than ever.
Besides the increased competition this will bring to the division itself, in turn, it could also help further mix things up in the Premier League too.
Revealing the watershed news on Thursday, 5 March, the EFL shared the update online, which has certainly left fans split over the decision.
Well, in truth, it seems the majority have been left shocked and angered by the announcement, with many responding with comments like, “Who asked for this?” and “Final nail in the coffin”, as well as citing “money” and “nothing but greed” as the main drivers for the changes.
EFL clubs obviously voted for the big shake-up as the added chance of fighting their way into the top flight will no doubt benefit them financially.
It remains to be seen whether this could signal similar adjustments made further down the ranks.
However, as many replied under the posts on social media, one key fear is that a team finishing in 8th – the new threshold for making it into the playoff stages – will be “slaughtered in the Prem” and that, if anything, it will highlight and/or widen the gap between the two leagues even more.
Most simply said that the current system is just “fine as it is” and “if ain’t broke don’t fix it”, but it looks like the wheels are already well and truly in motion.
Ruining the game. Finish 6th and have a chance to get promoted. People in charge are needing rid off. Every part of English football has out of touch people in charge coming up with awful ideas to keep their pay and clubs just go along with it. Tweet from 1987
Pure greed. Ultimately downgrades the look of the championship too when a team will inevitably finish 8th, probably a good 15-20 points behind autos and go up. Then get the lowest Premier League points ever
Safe to say that this is just a small taste of the overall reactions and almost universal consensus…
As detailed in the official statement by the EFL, Chief Executive, Trevor Birch, said: “Since their introduction in 1986/87, the Play-Offs have become a highlight of the domestic football calendar, capturing the drama, suspense and jeopardy that make the EFL so special.
“Following several months of discussion with Clubs and other stakeholders, we are confident this change will further strengthen the Championship as a competition and give more Clubs and their supporters a genuine opportunity of achieving promotion.”
They also clarified that “the exact final format will be agreed later in 2026.”
Are you a fan of a Championship club? Even if not, what do you make of the impending and controversial changes kicking off this year?
It’s mad how the EFL can sort a vote to increase the promotion opportunities for Championship clubs to the PL – yet still nothing on a second automatic place from the National League to L2.
No club promoted from the NL to L2 has ever come straight back down… https://t.co/tXy7aSOZ3l
TfGM unveils ‘significant’ programme of Metrolink engineering works to run throughout 2026
Emily Sergeant
A ‘significant’ programme of works are set to be carried out across Greater Manchester’s tram network this year.
As part of a wider £150m plan to ‘maintain, upgrade, and improve’ tram infrastructure across the region and make sure the Bee Network continues to deliver reliable and accessible services for millions more people into the future, Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) has announced that it’ll be undertaking various works throughout 2026.
And just as you’d expect, there is expected to be some ‘temporary periods of disruption’ for passengers while they are carried out.
Work is set to begin from this spring through to the autumn at a number of locations across the Greater Manchester network – including near Trafford Bar, Deansgate-Castlefield, Monsall, Newton Heath & Moston, Eccles, Derker and Piccadilly Gardens.
This does mean trams will have to stop on some lines while the work is done, but TfGM will reveal more information on this in due course, and promises ‘plenty of notice’ too, so keep your eyes peeled.
A ‘significant’ programme of Metrolink engineering works are set to run throughout 2026 / Credit: TfGM
The first major works will take place during the Easter Weekend at Trafford Bar and Deansgate-Castlefield, which are ‘preparatory works’ ahead of full track replacement later in the year, set to be carried out over four days from 3 to 6 April.
During this closure, rail replacement work will also take place on the Altrincham line, meaning there will be no trams on the Altrincham, Eccles, and Trafford Park lines all weekend, while the East Didsbury and Manchester Airport lines will run to Firswood only.
Aside from plans for engineering works, there will also be somewhat reduced services for a different reason for a large chunk of the year.
From Monday 30 March until autumn, a revised timetable will be introduced across the tram network while a significant recruitment drive gets underway to ‘take on and train up’ new tram drivers in a bid to build extra capacity and resilience in the workforce.
TfGM has indicated that some disruption will be caused for passengers / Credit: Janus Boye
During this time though, TfGM promises there will still be ‘reliable and frequent’ tram services running every 15 minutes and every 7.5 minutes at the busiest times on the most popular lines.
“Keeping our network safe, reliable, and ready for the future is our absolute priority,” explained Ian Davies, who is the Network Director for Metrolink at TfGM.
“This year’s programme is one of the most significant we’ve ever undertaken and will strengthen the whole network. Whilst we complete this work, we will introduce a temporary timetable change that will run between spring and autumn.
“We know that some of this work will mean temporary disruption, and I want to thank passengers for their patience while we get it done.
“But by investing now, we can reduce faults, improve day to day reliability and make sure Metrolink can keep pace with the growing number of people who depend on it every day now and for the future.”
You can find everything you need to know about this year’s tram improvement works on TfGM’s dedicated page here.