Review of Expressions of Interest process in relation to The Lido/Havre des Pas Bathing Pool and Café

STATES OF JERSEY

REVIEW OF EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST PROCESS IN RELATION TO THE LIDO /HAVRE-DES-PAS BATHING POOL AND CAFE

Presented to the States on 12th December 2025 by the Minister for Infrastructure

STATES GREFFE

2026  R.176

REPORT

This report presents the "Review of Expressions of Interest process in relation to The Lido/Havre-des-Pas Bathing Pool and Café" undertaken by Jurat Anthony Olsen.

Jurat Olsen has confirmed that, contrary to his earlier understanding and as set out in paragraph 35, Deputy Inna Gardiner previously served as Minister for Children and Education. The error is regretted.

Tuesday 9 December 2025 Dear Chief Minister,

Review of Expressions of Interest process in relation to The Lido/Havre-des-Pas Bathing Pool and Café

General and preliminary:

1  Thank you for your Letter of Instruction dated 19 November 2025 and for forwarding Terms of Reference ("TOR") in connection with this Review. For the benefit of others who might read this letter, a copy of each of these documents is enclosed herewith.

2  As regards the third paragraph of your Letter of Instruction, no costs or expenses will be incurred in connection with this Review on my account.

3  In this letter I refer to Love Our Lido Limited as "LOL", First Point Property Services Limited as "FP" and Jersey Property Holdings as "JPH."

4  The TOR are somewhat prescriptive, and at an early stage I determined to broaden the scope of this Review and pose two questions: first, was the Expressions of Interest ("EOI") process fair? Second, was it fairly administered? It is against the generality of those findings in relation to overall fairness that I shall seek to address the numbered points of the TOR appropriately.

5  Within the framework of overall fairness comes, among other things, the necessity for consideration of the existence of any actual or potential conflicts of interest, and I to take this point first.

Conflict of interest considerations (a) - the Reviewer

6  On Friday 24 March 2023 my sister-in-law, Mrs. Sandra June Mathew (née Vibert ), was sworn in as Procureur du Bien Public for the Parish of St. Clement . I was presiding over the Royal Court as Lieutenant Bailiff that morning. After the court had risen I joined my wife, Gaye, my sister-in-law and her husband, Mark Mathew (who is my wife's brother) and the Connétable of St. Clement , Mr. Marcus Troy , for morning coffee at Tiffin in New Street, St. Helier . I had not met Constable Troy before, and did not meet him again until he attended upon me with Mr. and Mrs. Maindonald as representatives of FP on Monday 1 December 2025.

7  The Charity Commissioner, Mr. John Mills CBE, features in this Review, though not as a protagonist. He has been known to me for many years. We served as trustees of a charitable trust together for some time and have always enjoyed a friendly relationship, though we do not socialise together. I have known Mr. Mills's wife, Ms.

Imogen Nicholls, for many years longer than I have known him, this through our joint interest in music.

8  The draft lease that was in due course forwarded to LOL and FP seems to have been prepared by Messrs. Carey Olsen, the Jersey part of which law firm I founded in 1981. I retired as a partner in and Chairman of the pan-Channel-Islands firm on 30 June 2009, but remained in office as Bâtonnier, or head of the Jersey Bar, retaining the use of an office, secretarial facilities and a car-parking space in the firm's building for a further two years. Other than as a client, I have had no connection with Messrs. Carey Olsen since my swearing-in as a Jurat on 15 June 2011.  

9  I am a reader and welcomer at Trinity Church, where my wife and I worship most Sundays when we are in the Island. Deputy David Warr is a member of the congregation, and we have occasionally conversed over coffee following the Sunday morning service. Being a member of the judiciary, I avoid discussing politics or political matters with anyone. Deputy Warr has certainly never mentioned the EOI process to me, neither would I consider raising it with him.

10  Save as set out in the paragraphs 6 to 9 inclusive above, prior to my undertaking this Review, none of the persons involved in LOL, FP or JPH or any of the events leading up to this process was known to me, and neither was any of the three members of the independent tribunal.

11  I am confident that I have no actual or potential conflict of interest in this matter. Conflict of interest considerations (b) - other

12  The  document  initially  inviting  Expressions  of  Interest  on  behalf  of  the Government of Jersey was prepared by Quérée Property Consultants Limited ("QPC"), as was a follow-up letter dated 21 February 2025, which was issued to all applicants, of which there were originally four. QPC also managed the EOI process. On behalf of FP it is asserted that QPC was potentially conflicted in that two of its directors, Mr. Jonathan Quérée and Ms. Lucy Schooling, had previously been employed by JPH.

13  No actual conflict of interest is asserted.

14  The position may have been different had either Mr. Quérée or Ms. Schooling had a previous connection with LOL or FP; but it is difficult to see how any conflict of interest could arise out of a previous employment relationship with JPH, a party that was, at this stage at any rate, entirely neutral in the EOI process.

15  I therefore conclude that QPC was not conflicted in this matter. The current position:

16  I have perused all documents that have been made available to me, which I understand to be the entirety of the documents that exist in connection with the EOI process. When I refer to a document in this letter it may be assumed that I have read it unless  indicated  to  the  contrary. I  have  also  reviewed  a  large  body  of  e-mail

correspondence that has passed between the various parties in connection with this matter.  

17  At my invitation, LOL and FP helpfully filed summaries of their respective positions.

18  Over  the  course  of  three  days  during  the  week  commencing  Monday  1 December 2025 I met with (i) Mrs. Debbie Maindonald, Mr. Jason Maindonald and Constable Marcus Troy as representing FP; (ii) the Charity Commissioner and Mr. Richard Jouault, Head of the Office of the Charity Commissioner; (iii) Deputy Mary Le Hégarat,  (iv)   Deputy  Inna   Gardiner  and  (v)  Mr.  Simon  Mattthews  (all  of  them separately,  and  in  their  capacity  as  members  and  chairman  respectively  of  the independent panel); (vi) Mr. Tim Daniels, Director of JPH, and Mr. Andy Scate, Chief Officer for Infrastructure and Environment, as representing JPH; and (vii) Mr. Matt Falla and Mr. Giles Robson as representing LOL.

19  All meetings were conducted in private within a meeting room on the first floor of the States building in Union Street. Present at every one was Ms. Sophie Maguire, Administration and Research Officer for the Government of Jersey, who acted as meeting organiser and note-taker.

20  I had previously issued a direction that the meetings be limited to two hours in duration, having considered such a period to be more than sufficient for the respective spokesmen to have their say, though in a couple of instances I later indicated that further time would be allowed if such were required. In the event it was not.

21  I had also directed that only one representative of each of the parties would be permitted to address me and/or answer any questions that I might have, this with a view to conducting the meetings in an efficient manner. In the event, circumstances were such that I allowed all representatives who attended to address me if they wished.

22  At my request Ms. Maguire had arranged for a break-out room to be available, should such be required. In the event, it was not.

23  All the meetings were conducted with mutual respectfulness, courtesy and due decorum.

Facts and findings:

24  The Havre des Pas Complex is currently occupied under the terms of a Licence Agreement by The Lido (Havre Des Pas) Limited, which company has occupied the premises for many years. The term of the licence is due to expire on Christmas Day 2025. JPH had experienced long-term difficulties with the current occupant, and when the decision was made to find a tenant for the premises with effect from 1 January 2026, JPH resolved to outsource the process to QPC and to put a strong independent panel in place.

25  I find the two documents referred to at paragraph 12 above to be of high quality and duly professional in terms of both style and content. There is no criticism on the part of either LOL or FP of the role performed by QPC at any stage of the EOI process.

26  The independent panel was appointed on or about 23 April 2025 and first met together for a briefing the following day. By this time, both the EOI document and follow-up letter had been issued. A clarification process between applicants and QPC had also taken place. A total of four applications had been submitted.

27  The members of the independent panel received the four applications, along with the criteria and weightings on which they were to be assessed. The applications were evaluated following a clarification interview with each applicant.

28  The three members  scored each  applicant separately in the  first instance, whereafter the Chairman, Mr. Simon Matthews, assembled a consensus score based upon the three members' scores. This exercise identified two applicants that/who scored much lower than the others. From the initial four applications, therefore, the independent panel shortlisted two, namely LOL and FP, for further clarification and evaluation.

29  The independent panel was proactive. Of its own motion it issued to LOL and FP a comprehensive Additional Clarifications Document dated 23 May 2025. This was prepared by Mr. Matthews and included the terms and conditions of the lease agreement, a template cashflow forecast and some additional information that was necessary for the independent panel to conclude the requisite scoring. It also contained a section entitled "Key Dates", which envisaged finalisation of Agreements (presumably to include the lease) by July 2025.

30  The panel interviewed both the shortlisted applicants after they had submitted their responses to the Additional Clarifications Document. They were then evaluated on the basis of their applications, their responses to the Additional Clarifications Document and the clarifications that had been provided at the interviews. Again, all three members of the independent panel initially scored each applicant separately, and then a consensus score was assembled by the Chairman, this being based on the three individual members' scores.

31  Both LOL and FP scored highly, LOL scoring 74.75 and FP 70.25. I have seen the evaluation sheets in respect of both the initial and second stage applications. The evaluation document in respect of the  second  stage  applications  is  commendably detailed and includes the respective rationale of each of the members of the independent panel for scoring as they did.

32  On behalf of the independent panel, the chairman briefed Constable Simon Crowcroft , the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure, in person on 14 July 2025. He also presented him with a briefing document setting out the findings of the independent panel and highlighting certain areas of caution and possible concern, noting that there still remained  work  to  be  done  with  each  applicant.   In  particular,  the  briefing  note recommended that the terms "preferred" and "reserve" be used in connection with LOL and FP respectively, the objective being that if negotiations with the preferred applicant could not be completed within an agreed timescale, the discussions would default to the

reserve applicant. (This suggestion was in the event adopted by the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure.)

33 At this point, namely 14 July 2025, the independent panel became functus officio – its job was done. But it is necessary for me to go back a little in time in order to make some comments about the panel in general and the evaluation process in particular.

34 Mary Le Hégarat serves as Deputy in St Helier North and as Minister for Justice and Home Affairs. During interview she impressed as firm, fair, efficient and straightforward to deal with.

35 Inna Gardiner also serves as Deputy for St. Helier North and is the Minister for Children and Education. I formed the impression of a forthright person who was clear, articulate and focused.

36 Simon Matthews is an experienced Chartered Surveyor. His current role is Chief Property and Sustainability Officer for the Channel Islands Co-Operative Society. In that role he is responsible for some 140 properties across the Channel Islands. He impressed as professional, proactive and enthusiastic.

37  In terms of the evaluation process, all applicants made submissions based on the same information as set out in the QPC documents and the Additional Clarifications Document; no applicant received any information that the others did not receive; all applicants were afforded the same period of time in which to make their respective submissions; at both the initial stages and the shortlisting stage all applicants received a thorough review and evaluation against the same criteria; all applicants were afforded an interview with the independent panel (at both initial and shortlisting stage); all applications were scored based on their submitted material and the interviews; and at each stage, the  panel members scored each  application independently in the first instance.

38 It was clear to the chairman of the independent panel from assembling the consensus score that no member thereof had scored any of the applicants' submissions significantly differently, so there was no evidence of an any panel member's inclining towards a particular applicant. Mr. Matthews told me that he was, therefore, satisfied that the evaluation and scoring process ensured that all applicants had been treated fairly and consistently, and that the scores attributed to all of the applications, at each stage of the process, were fair. [1]

39 In terms of both the composition of the independent panel and the way in which it worked, it would be difficult to conceive of a more fair, robust and effective evaluation process.

40 There remain two other matters in relation to the evaluation process with which it behoves me to deal.

41 The first is an allegation that the members of the independent panel had been threatened. This can be despatched at once: they all roundly declared to me that they had not. Indeed, Deputy Le Hégarat told me that if any threat had been made to her, she would have gone straight to the Police.

42 Secondly, I am tasked inter alia to consider whether there was any unreasonable interference or involvement in the process from third parties (TOR paragraph 4). I have found no evidence of this. True it is that on 16 June 2025 Deputy David Warr sent an e-mail to Deputies Gardiner and Le Hégarat, requesting a "Face-to-Face Site Meeting with the Lido Steering Group" and giving detailed reasons as to why he considered such a meeting to be necessary. The recipients declined the invitation as they considered that such a meeting would be inappropriate. I respectfully agree with the decision to decline the invitation in the circumstances, and am satisfied that this approach from Deputy Warr had no influence at all upon the independent panel's deliberations or their outcome.

43 The result of the evaluation process was duly announced to the LOL and FP both verbally and by e-mail in mid-July. FP was disappointed and immediately began to make various claims and complaints in relation to the EOI process. This correspondence continued through the summer and into the autumn. The tone of some of the communications was unedifying, and indeed on 17 October 2025 Constable Troy wrote to you personally to apologise for the fact that, " in instances phrases and inferences used were less than parliamentarian."

44 It is, however, unnecessary to consider these exchanges of correspondence or the assertions therein made. By late September this year LOL was no longer the preferred applicant - FP was. At that point all FP's complaints and claims melted away, and indeed FP's written submissions to me begin: "First Point was fully satisfied with the tender process"

45 The position accordingly is that, until LOL lost its preferred bidder status, in effect neither LOL nor FP had any complaints to make about the EOI process.

46 Reverting to the twin test as set out in paragraph 4 of this letter, my finding is that, effective as at mid-July 2025, the EOI process had been fair and it had been fairly administered. There is no evidence of bias or discrimination. There was total transparency. There were no conflicts of interest. There had been complete equality in the provision of or access to information. And, as already observed, the evaluation process was fair, robust and effective.

47 The second part of the EOI process covers the period between LOL's gaining preferred bidder status and losing it. I pose again in this context two general questions: was this part of the process fair, and was it fairly administered?

48 On 22 July 2025 Mr. Daniels e-mailed Mr. Maindonald, notifying him that a deadline of 26 September was to be set to agree a contract with LOL, adding that if agreement could not be reached by the deadline the lease would be discussed with FP.

Presumably LOL was notified of this deadline at or about the same time, though I cannot find any e-mail to that effect. Be that as it may, it is clear that LOL was at all times aware of the existence of the deadline.

49  There were some delays. LOL complains that there was a six-week delay in the provision of a draft lease, in that it had been expected in July, but was not provided until 27 August. LOL contends that this left only about 23 days for due diligence and legal review. In this context, however, I observe that the draft lease is not an especially complex document, and in any event, its principal terms had been known to both LOL and FP since 23 May this year – see paragraph 29 above.

50  LOL also complains about the late provision of information in relation to electricity and operational costs and fluctuations in those costs, with no explanation. But the information was provided to LOL, albeit later than LOL might have wished; and it is telling that FP did not raise any concerns in relation to these matters when it gained preferred bidder status.

51  Various other points were and are raised by LOL, one of which is that there had been a change in the composition of the independent panel, in that the independent expert had been changed without explanation. I find there to be no merit in this complaint – indeed, during the LOL representatives' meeting with me, Mr. Falla described the independent panel as "engaged and robust." LOL also complains that the draft lease was a "generic commercial template, incompatible with LOL's model". As already observed, the parties had known of the principal terms of the draft lease since 23 May 2025 and had had ample opportunity to raise queries or concerns in relation thereto with JPH. In addition, as far as I have been able to ascertain, no "LOL's model" document has ever been produced.

52  PDH's early communications with LOL impress as helpful and supportive, but as time went by with no significant progress being made, PDH began to sense that there was nervousness on the part of LOL about incurring the obligations under the lease. In addition, as Mr. Scate put it when meeting with me, "there were issues about the financials", and both Mr. Daniels and Mr. Scate were beginning to feel a sense of "unease about dealing with this fledgling organisation."

53  During  my  meeting  with  LOL,  Messrs.   Falla  and  Robson  impressed  as thoughtful, committed and community-minded men. I gained the impression that they had been somewhat bruised by the EOI experience, Mr. Falla in particular. They seemed genuinely puzzled by the perceived need for speed on the part of JPH, Mr. Falla observing at one point that The Lido is over 100 years old – the implied rhetorical question being, as I took it, why the hurry now? Mr. Falla confessed to me a degree of nervousness about entering into the lease and mentioned being, "rushed into a deadline" that was "not realistic". Overall I gathered the impression of well-meaning people who were out of their comfort-zone in relation to a set of commercial negotiations, and who had been somewhat ill-prepared. Indeed, Mr. Robson told me that it had felt "strange".

54  I raised with Mr. Falla a point about the draft lease, Clause 4.9.2 of which casts this obligation upon the tenant:

"Not to assign this Lease or sub-let the whole or any part of the Demised Premises without the  prior  written consent of  the  Landlord  which  consent  shall  be  at  the Landlord's discretion."2

I was aware that LOL, unlike FP, intended to sub-let inter alia the catering side of the business to a third party if it were successful in its bid, and wondered whether LOL might have considered inviting the current occupant, namely The Lido (Havre Des Pas) Limited, to take a sub-lease. In view of the difficulties that JPH had experienced with that company over the years I wondered whether LOL might be leaving itself exposed commercially by signing up to a covenant whereby the consent of the landlord could be given or withheld at its discretion, rather than having in place the more usual covenant that provides that consent to sub-letting should not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Mr. Falla seemed unconcerned by this, however, and content to rest upon various representations that Mr. Daniels had made to him in connection with sub-lettings generally. Given that LOL, if successful, would have been reliant upon income from sub-lettings in substantial measure, such a lack of concern in relation to this potentially draconian provision in the lease struck me as being somewhat at odds with sound business sense.

55  Overall I found FP to be significantly more businesslike and focused than LOL. In fairness, perhaps this is to some extent unsurprising, given that FP is a commercial operation, whereas LOL is a community-based/not-for-profit one. Nonetheless it is to be  observed  that  FP's  submission  pack  in  response  to  the  EOI  invitation  was professional to a degree and very detailed, to the extent of even including some sample menus. Clearly a great deal of time, trouble and expertise had gone into preparing this submission. During my meeting with the three FP representatives, they came across as sincere,  enthusiastic  and  positive.   FP  has  and  could  demonstrate  expertise  and experience in the catering and hospitality industry. Another positive point in favour of FP's bid was that it would, unlike LOL, not require any public funding or subsidy, save for the £60,000 annual grant to any new tenant to assist with the cost of repairs and maintenance of the Havre Des Pas premises during the term of the lease.

56  Mr. Daniels told me at our meeting that the Havre Des Pas premises are a "small, but significant" part of the public estate that JPH is tasked to administer. The total estate consists of some 1,000 "assets", as he put it, with a combined capital value of about £1 billion. Mr. Daniels told me that the Havre Des Pas premises were a "minor site taking up a great deal of time and effort." Mr. Scate referred to FP as "another bidder with a track record" – and indeed a bidder that was ready to sign the lease. It is clear that by late September this year negotiations with LOL were effectively going nowhere. Taking those points and also those set out in paragraph 55 above into account, it is not difficult to see why JPH finally elected to confer preferred-applicant status on FP.

57  On 24 September 2025 Mr. Falla sent an e-mail to Mr. Daniels, the first paragraph of which reads in extract as follows:

2 The Additional Clarifications document had also drawn attention to the provision that sub- lettings were at the Landlord's discretion.

" please may we extend our sincerest thanks for the support you have provided to the proposed Governors of the Love Our Lido Charity (noting the charity has yet to be formed) during the contractual process that followed the awarding of Preferred Bidder status in relation to the Havre Des Pas Swimming Pools"

The e-mail went on to address a number of areas of expressed concern that required to be "remediated" before the lease could be finalised and signed, and continued in extract thus:

Given the outstanding matters, we continue to believe that the 30th September 2025 deadline imposed for the Lease to be signed provides insufficient time to effectively liaise with stakeholders, consider all aspects of the site, mitigate the known risks and negotiate the sub-contracts required As such, we are left with two options: request that the deadline be extended to the 31st December 2025  [2]or be forced to withdraw our bid."

58  It is significant that this e-mail was sent over seven weeks after LOL had gained preferred-bidder status, but notwithstanding the passage of that period of time, it was clear that LOL had yet " to effectively liaise with stakeholders, consider all aspects of the site, mitigate the known risks and negotiate the sub-contracts required." On any view that is a not insignificant to-do list, especially at such a late stage; the contents of this e-mail serve to confirm my impression that LOL and JPH had for some time been marching to the beat of different drums.

59 Mr. Daniels responded on 29 September 2025 in the following terms:

"Thank you for this note. I have consulted widely and taking direction sincerely regret that we are unable to extend the deadline for signing a lease for Havre Des Pas and must adhere to the time frame as established. Please confirm that you will be withdrawing your application and I will revert to the reserve applicant."

60 During our meeting I asked Mr. Daniels what he meant about his having "consulted widely and taking direction". He responded that he had consulted the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and "possibly" the Law Officers, and that he and Mr. Scate had conferred together.

61 Mr. Falla responded to the e-mail referred to at paragraph 59 above just over an hour later, expressing disappointment that the "self-imposed" deadline would not be extended, and added this:

"We will not be formally withdrawing our application, as I understand that you will be enforcing the deadline and thus removing the proposed Charity from the process."

62 Mr. Daniels replied a few minutes later in these terms:

"In order to retain the transparency of the process and as the proposed charity has not been incorporated and[3] able to agree a lease and we are unable to extend the deadline,

we will now move to speak to the reserve applicant who will be given a finite time to agree and sign the lease.

The objectives remain the same, to maintain a heritage asset and provide a community facility."

63 Three minutes later, Mr. Falla replied: "Your decision is noted."

64 JPH reverted to FP, which was then substituted as the preferred bidder. FP was announced as the winner of the tender on 31 October 2025.

65 Mr. Daniels's use of the phrase that I have emphasised in the first line of his e- mail quoted at Paragraph 62 above is curious, inasmuch as it gives the impression that in order to be successful in its bid, LOL would have been required to have charitable status.

66 That is patently not the case. Nowhere in the correspondence or documents is there any reference to charitable status being a prerequisite for, or a condition precedent of, a successful bid on the part of LOL.

67 Indeed, in an e-mail that Mr. Scate sent to Mr. Maindonald on 1 August 2025, he wrote with reference to LOL, in his second bullet point, "charitable status is not a requirement."

68 It is clear that at all relevant stages it was assumed by both LOL and JPH that, if successful in its bid and able to reach agreement with JPH, LOL would apply for charitable status. It is also clear that, in that event, its application therefor would have been granted, LOL having liaised with the Charity Commissioner and discussed the matter with him.

69 The Charity Commissioner took that which he acknowledged to be the unusual step of issuing a public statement on 11 November 2025. The statement reads as follows:

"I wish to address a report in today's Jersey Evening Post (11 November 2025) headed A lot of confusion ahead of vote – and protest – over Lido.'

Normally I do not comment on applications for charity registration. Where, however, there may be a risk of misunderstanding or misrepresentation that could affect public trust and confidence in registered charities, I will seek an applicant's consent to clarify matters publicly.

I have done that in this instance.

Today's article states: "Love Our Lido isn't a charity, despite intentions to become one, they [the Government] said, adding that this was a "key reason" for withdrawing their preferred applicant status"

I wish to place on record that there was no regulatory impediment to the charity being formed.

The necessary arrangements for registration had been agreed with Love Our Lido. The only obstacle arose from concerns expressed by the prospective charity governors regarding the terms of the proposed agreement with the Government of Jersey.

The prospective governors were duty-bound to seek to ensure that the charity which they intended to establish had a secure financial foundation. This includes clarity on taxpayers' funding and full transparency regarding all costs and obligations associated with operation (sic) of the Lido. That remains the position."

70  Mr. Mills confirmed during my meeting with him and Mr. Jouault that LOL would have been granted charitable status, "as soon as it made a deal with JPH."

71  Mr. Daniels prepared a briefing note to the Council of Ministers for its meeting on 30 October 2025. The second paragraph of the section entitled "The EOI process" reads as follows:

"Love Our Lido later withdrew from the process on 24 September 2025 being unable to meet the requirements made by the independent panel to confirm their appointment. (One notable reason being that they were unable to secure Jersey Charity status.)"

72  In my view that statement is misleading in three respects.

73  First, although LOL had indicated that it would withdraw from the EOI process if it were not granted an extension of time (see paragraph 57 above) it did not in the event withdraw. Indeed, as we have seen (paragraph 61 above) on 29 September 2025 Mr. Falla stated in terms that LOL would not be withdrawing. The true factual position is that LOL did not withdraw from the process – it was removed from it.

74  Second, the sentence in parenthesis gives the impression that charitable status was a prerequisite for, or a condition precedent to, a successful bid by LOL. As we have seen (paragraphs 66 and 67 above) that was not the case.

75  Third, the sentence in parenthesis conveys the impression - to these eyes at any rate - that LOL had applied for charitable status, and that such application had been refused, whereas the true factual position is that LOL never finalised its application; there was no point in doing so as by this time LOL was not going to be the new tenant of the Havre Des Pas premises. So no application was refused; more accurately, it was not proceeded with.

76  As regards the points made in paragraph 73 above, I have pondered upon whether the matter of withdrawal, as opposed to removal, of LOL from the EOI process is in effect a distinction without a difference; by 30 October 2025 LOL no longer had any "skin in the game" – so how much does this really matter?

77  I have concluded that it does indeed matter. One of the criteria for determining whether a process is fair is that it must be totally transparent; and no process can be totally transparent unless all the facts upon which a decision is made are fairly and accurately stated.

78 I therefore conclude that the statement quoted at paragraph 71 above was incorrect and apt to mislead the Council of Ministers.

79 At my meeting with the LOL representatives I referred them to the statement quoted at paragraph 71 above. Mr. Falla described this as "a false statement to the Council of Ministers." He also pointed out that LOL is a company limited by guarantee and perfectly able to contract on its own account; LOL could have been granted the lease even if charitable status had never been mentioned.

80 It is not difficult to see why Mr. Falla should have described the statement referred to at paragraph 71 above in the way he did, but having met Messrs. Daniels and Scate, I formed the impression of two industrious, committed, personable and honest public servants who were trying their best. I would be very surprised indeed had Mr. Daniels issued this statement deliberately knowing it to be false, and indeed I cannot think of any motive that he might have had for doing so.

81 Mr. Daniels could so easily have reported to the Council of Ministers that LOL and JPH had been unable to reach agreement within the prescribed timescale, and therefore the reserve applicant had now become the preferred one – and left it at that. Alas he did not.

82 Among the documents I have perused is one that is described as a Standing Order 168 notification'. It was presented to the States on 3 November last by the Minister for Infrastructure and, in broad general outline, it recommended that the Public of this Island enter into a new nine-year lease with FP.

83 About halfway down page 3 of the document appears this statement:

"After a period of further discussions, Love Our Lido later withdrew from the process on 24 September being unable to meet the requirements made by the independent panel (one notable reason being unable to secure Jersey Charity status)."

84 It will be observed that this statement, whilst not identical, is very similar to that set out at paragraph 71 above. The same considerations as are set out at paragraphs 72 to 77 inclusive above therefore apply, and for those reasons, my conclusion is that this statement was incorrect and apt to mislead the States Assembly.

85 Mr. Daniels has drawn my attention to a Written Question and Answer (WQ 436/2025). I find nothing in the Answer filed by the Minister for Infrastructure that alters my conclusion that the statements referred at paragraphs 71 and 83 above were incorrect and misleading.

86 For these reasons I am unable to conclude that the second part of the EOI process was fairly conducted.

87 Finally, I revert to the TOR document and take its numbered paragraphs in order:

1. Yes, to all three bullet points.
2. This is dealt with in the body of this letter.

3. Done.
4. There was not.
5. Done.

With kind regards, Yours sincerely,

Jurat Anthony Olsen

[1] It is appropriate to acknowledge that Mr. Matthews offered his time, experience and expertise to the people of this Island in connection with this matter entirely free of charge.

[2] (Original emphasis.)

[3] (My emphasis.)