Leeds Council facing potential £1m bill from 'unfair competition' case brought by floral planter business

The firm alleges the council has unfairly used its regulatory powers to exclude Instaplanta from the roadside advertising market in favour of its own sponsorship arrangements.

Instaplanta argues the situation has cost it more than £1m in lost profits.

In advance of the main case taking place later this year, the Tribunal has now rejected a council application to make Instaplanta liable for the authority’s costs in the case – estimated at £922,049. The council had initially estimated the costs at

The council argued that security was needed to protect public funds and services.

But the application was dismissed by the tribunal, with chair Ben Tidswell stating that approving it would “in effect lead to the end of the claim” as Instaplanta would have to withdraw its case for financial reasons.

"It is plain from the evidence that the Claimant does not itself (or from its shareholders) have the financial resources to meet anything but a nominal order for security for costs,” he said.

"I do not consider it reasonable to require the directors to put their personal assets directly at risk for the purposes of the litigation.”

Part of the evidence presented by Instaplanta in support of its case is a 2015 email from a council Parks and Countryside employee to a Highways and Transportation employee objecting to an application by Instaplanta to site wooden planters in certain locations.

The email stated: "I feel that by allowing [the Claimant], or any other company, to install planters with advertisements on Leeds City Council land can only have a detrimental effect on the value of our sponsorship sites.

"It would affect new sponsorship opportunities as well as the guarantee of renewals from companies who currently sponsor the sites.

"It will greatly reduce the opportunity for us to maintain current sponsorship levels as well as create future revenue from sponsorship should the opportunity arise.

"We cannot maximise income if we allow a third party to offer a similar product on the same street or in the same area with no financial gain whats oever for the authority.

"I would like to ask the question as to why Leeds City Council would even consider allowing these planters on land vested with the Authority when it has the clear potential to jeopardise the revenue that an in-house service is providing.”

The highways worker then replied: “I will object on your behalf, ensuring your comments and contact details are included.”

The council has told the tribunal it changed its internal processes in 2017 to facilitate applications by Instaplanta.

Tribunal chair Mr Tidswell said of the email evidence: “The email and other documentary evidence which the Claimant relies on supports, on its face, a plausible theory of exclusionary conduct.

"However, it is clear that this question will be hotly contested by the Defendant at trial and I express no view on the likely outcome here.”

Instaplanta director Malcolm Simpson has urged the council to reach out an out-of-court settlement with his company following the costs ruling.

Mr Simpson said that the council’s “best case scenario” of winning the case would still cost taxpayers over £900,000 and a defeat could be three times that amount.

He said he hoped a full legal hearing could still be avoided in the best interests of all parties.

"Nobody should want this to go to court and we hope this case can be settled but Leeds City Council have to talk to us to do that.”

He said Instaplanta would have had to withdraw its case had the court ruled against it on the security of costs order.

A spokesperson for Leeds City Council said: “We are not in a position to comment on this matter as it is the subject of an ongoing legal process.”