Blow to Michael Gove as judge rules school building cuts 'an abuse of power'

Education Secretary Michael Gove suffered fresh embarrassment today when he was defeated in the High Court over cuts to the school building programme.

The court branded the way some of the cuts were imposed as an "abuse of power" and triggered a row over whether they should be reversed.

Six councils took the action, including Waltham Forest and Newham. The judgment is a blow to Mr Gove who has already been criticised for rushing out a list of school building cutbacks that contained inaccuracies.

But in his ruling the judge said "none should gain false hope from this decision", implying that the likelihood of grants being paid out after all was slim. Downing Street said it had lost only on technicalities but had won the "substantive issue" that the Minister had the power to scrap the rebuilding scheme on the grounds that it was poor value for money.

The judge also stressed that, provided Mr Gove discharged his duty to consult fairly and take into account equality considerations, "the final decision on any given school or project still rests with him".

Council leaders said schools that had been earmarked for repairs had their funding withdrawn at the last minute, leaving them with bills for work they had booked, and children in crumbling classrooms.

Waltham Forest said it had been allocated £250 million to repair and rebuild its schools before Mr Gove cancelled the scheme in July. It was left £10 million out of pocket after buying land, employing architects and paying for design work.

Mr Justice Holman, sitting in London, allowed the challenges by the councils, declaring Mr Gove had unlawfully failed to consult them before imposing the cuts. The judge said that in five of the cases the failure was "so unfair as to amount to an abuse of power".

Lawyers for the councils argued that the axing of building, rebuilding and refurbishing projects in their areas was arbitrary and legally flawed and failed to take account of the merits of individual schemes.

Lawyers for the Education Secretary argued that his decisions were not made lightly and were not open to legal challenge. They stated the coalition had inherited "the largest budget deficit in peacetime history", and spending cuts had to be made "quickly and significantly".