The Stage

ACE to review Watermans funding decision to avoid court case

Published Tuesday 17 June 2008 at 16:35 by Alistair Smith

Arts Council England is to review its controversial funding cut to west London venue Watermans in an effort to avoid a costly legal battle.

Watermans was one of a number of arts companies whose regular funding was removed as part of last winter’s spending review. The company had since taken legal action against ACE, claiming that the decision to remove its £416,000 annual grant was “flawed and illegal”.

This week, a judge reviewed the claim and found the arts centre has a triable case, which would have to be heard in court.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Langstaff observed that the venue “was told [by ACE] of the rationale for the proposed decision [to withdraw its funding] so it could comment on it, and arguably having answered this found that the final decision had been taken on different grounds, which it had no proper opportunity to address.”

As a result, and in a bid to avoid a legal battle at substantial cost to the tax payer, ACE has agreed to reconsider Watermans’ case at its next London regional council meeting.

Karum Bhullar, chair of Watermans, claimed that the judge’s verdict marked a victory for the arts centre. She added: “This decision is a very positive result for Watermans. The arts council has since offered to settle the matter out of court. We welcome this approach which will allow us to focus our time and resources on our arts programme. At a time when Watermans is planning to play a significant role in the launch of the 2012 Cultural Olympiad, we would not want these proceedings to cast a shadow over the programme for west London. Given the judge’s positive comments about our case, we hope that ACE will now reinstate Watermans’ funding without further delay.”

However, an ACE spokesperson stressed that it had not agreed to reinstate any subsidy, only to take another look at its decision.

She added: “Watermans’ statement is misleading and misinterprets our position. While we note the judge’s comments, ACE in no way concedes that the decision not to renew Watermans’ funding was wrong, or that the way in which that decision was taken was unfair or unlawful.

“As always, we are mindful of the need to protect public money. We have therefore made an offer to Watermans’ legal representatives to put the funding proposal before our regional council again at the meeting in September, in order to avoid the expense and delay of a hearing.”