The High Court has rejected legal challenges to the closures of Sittingbourne and Barry magistrates’ courts.

Kent firm Robin Murray & Co brought judicial review proceedings in relation to the closure at Sittingbourne, while Vale of Glamorgan Council acted in the case of Barry.

The same tribunal – made up of Lord Justice Elias, Mr Justice Beatson and Mr Justice Hickinbottom – heard both cases, finding in favour of justice secretary Ken Clarke.

A third challenge relating to the closure of Cardigan Magistrates’ Court was refused on the papers, and although the application was renewed at an oral hearing, it was withdrawn shortly before the hearing.

The principal ground upon which the challenge to the Kent court closure was brought related to the way the consultation was carried out. It was also claimed that Clarke’s decision that the disabled facilities at Sittingbourne were worse than those at Medway, to which cases would be transferred, was perverse and failed to give proper consideration to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

The court held that there were ‘objective criteria’ for determining the court’s closure and said that Clarke’s decision was lawful.

Beatson said: ‘It is understandable that closures of local court facilities raise serious concerns amongst the professionals who work at or use a court, other court users and local residents. We consider that the issues raised by the claimant are important and deserved ventilation at a substantive judicial review hearing.’

The High Court said the reasons for the closure of Barry Magistrates’ Court were ‘clear and cogent’. Despite the fact that the court had recently been refurbished at a cost of £1.9m, the Ministry of Justice said estimated annual savings of around £282,000 would be made by closing the court and merging it with Cardiff. The court heard that there were 45 responses to the consultation on the court’s closure, of which 41 were opposed, two neutral, and two – including the Crown Prosecution Service – in favour.

The court said a powerful submission had been made by Atal y Fro, a local support group for domestic violence victims. The group argued that Barry was an important specialist domestic violence centre whose work would be undermined if cases were transferred to Cardiff.

The group also noted that the court’s closure would mean that the largest town in Wales had no magistrates’ court and the Vale of Glamorgan would be the only local authority without a courthouse.

Beatson said there were ‘powerful arguments in favour of retaining the court’, but that these had sought ‘to persuade the court to engage in the merits of the decision and to trespass into the realms of resource allocation, which is not the court’s business’.

He concluded that there was ‘no error of law’ in Clarke’s approach to making the decision and that therefore the application failed.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: ‘We welcome the court's judgments. The government is committed to supporting local justice, enabling justice to be done and be seen to be done in our communities.’