Blackballed alderman loses fight for his seat

An elected City of London alderman yesterday failed in his High Court battle to overturn a medieval custom which enabled the privileged men who rule the Square Mile to blackball him.

Malcolm Matson, a millionaire businessman, was elected last November with 78 per cent of the vote to join the exclusive world of the 25 aldermen, who - as well as wining and dining with the livery companies and ancient trade groups - are responsible for policing, roads and schools in the City. They automatically become magistrates and ultimately are eligible to serve as Lord Mayor for a year.

But under charter, law and custom, set out in the 14th century, the aldermen have the right to interview those elected to decide if each is a "fit and proper" person to join them. And they decided that Mr Matson, 51 - who had unseated a sitting member in an election campaign in Bread ward in which he questioned the "moral integrity" of the City - was not. He was given no reason for his exclusion, which means that another election will have to be called.

City watchers have described it as a clash of cultures between the grammar school pupil turned wealthy telecommunications pioneer and the predominantly Eton, Harrow and Charterhouse educated aldermen. Others suggest it has more to do with Mr Matson rocking the establishment's boat.

Mr Matson himself says he has no idea of the reasons.

The right to exclude elected members was first challenged in the courts 150 years ago by Michael Scales, elected three times and thrice rejected by the court of aldermen.

Like Mr Matson, Mr Scales lost. Since then, the aldermen have refused admission to 10 others, none of whom has mounted a challenge through the courts until now.

Mr Matson launched an application for judicial review in an attempt to overturn what he says are archaic, "secretive and undemocratic" rules. His lawyers argued that his exclusion without giving reasons affronts natural justice and a duty to be fair.

But Mr Justice Latham ruled that he could not conclude the decision to exclude was perverse: the Court of Aldermen had to make a decision based on Mr Matson's personality, understanding of the City and his judgement. And in what amounted to an appointment interview, there could be no requirement to give reasons.

The judge said he accepted that this may leave Mr Matson feeling he had "suffered an injustice" and that electors would be deprived of the opportunity of knowing what motivated the Court of Aldermen to reject their choice, but that was not the law. The judge put a stay on the holding of a new election pending an application by Mr Matson for an appeal.

Mr Matson, who was ordered to pay costs, said he was determined to take the matter "all the way to the House of Lords if necessary". People had voted for a change in culture and had been refused. "I find it extraordinary . . . Here we are in the centre of one of the greatest financial markets in the world, supposedly based on liberty and democracy. And here, at the heart, we have seen a collapse and denial of democracy," he said.