Derry City FC and Crusaders FC lawyers challenge Football Fund decision in High Court

Lawyers for Derry City FC and Crusaders FC claimed the process became unlawful after the opposition to Mr. Jeffrey’s selection by Communities Minister Gordon Lyons.

Both clubs are challenging their exclusion from stage two of the investment programme.

The omission amounted to a breach of a procedural legitimate expectation, a judge was told.

Aimed at improving stadiums and infrastructure across NI the Stormont Executive allocated an initial £36.2m budget to the Football Fund.

Out of 41 clubs eligible to apply, a total of 38 bids were submitted during the first phase of the process.

Three tiers of potential funding were available based on the scale of projects.

In September 2025 Mr Lyons announced 20 clubs from across NI had been successful in reaching the next stage.

Derry City and Crusaders missed out completely.

The two clubs are now seeking a judicial review of the process, alleging that the Department for Communities’ competition process was flawed.

The court heard a specialist sectoral panel of experts was supposed to advise the Minister on submitted bids after they were scored and ranked.

It was claimed the Department unlawfully removed that safeguarding stage after funding applications closed.

Citing affidavit evidence, Stephen Toal KC said Mr Lyons verbally indicated he wanted Mr Jeffrey, the former player, pundit and manager, as one of two independent members on the panel.

Gary McAllister, chairman of the Amalgamation of Official NI Supporters’ Clubs, was to be his second pick.

Objections to the two proposed appointments were raised by NI Football League Chief Executive Gerard Lawlor and Irish FA boss Graham Fitzgerald respectively.

Mr Toal argued the Department identified alternative independent candidates for the sectoral panel, but encountered three months of ‘ministerial silence’ on the potential solution which halted the process.

“The Department then moved towards abandonment of the panel as a result of the Minister’s disengagement,” he submitted.

“That is not a lawful justification for departing from a published process.”

Stressing the panel’s role as a safeguard for decision-making and protecting public confidence, the barrister claimed a failure to show legally adequate reasons for changing the rules after the event.

“The Applicants invite the court to quash the decision not to convene the sectoral panel and the consequential decision not to progress (Crusaders and Derry City),” he said.

Tony McGleenan KC, for the Department, described the case as a narrow challenge centred on an alleged breach of the procedural legitimate expectation.

“The legal question is whether or not a Minister can lawfully change his mind, or resile from a position.

“The answer at a theoretical level is yes, a Minister can,” he said.

Mr. McGleenan denied any illegality around the months of ministerial inactivity over requests to approach the two suggested alternative candidates.

“There is nothing particularly striking about a Minister not responding… this can go on for very protracted periods and it is not the only matter on his desk.”

Reserving judgment, Mr Justice Fowler pledged to rule on the challenge as soon as possible.