A campaigner is determined to continue her battle against Barnet Borough Council’s controversial outsourcing scheme, despite losing "round one" in the high court.

Maria Nash, 68, of New Barnet, brought the legal challenge against Barnet Borough Council on the grounds it failed to properly consult residents on its decision to outsource millions of pounds worth of public services in its One Barnet scheme.

The case focused on bringing in Capita, a services company, to run council back-office services, and a proposed joint venture between the council and a private sector partner to run development and regulatory services.

Ms Nash, a former holistic therapist and disabilities campaigner, argued that private sector companies would not deliver adequate service levels, particularly for disabled people.

But the presiding Judge, Lord Justice Underhill, delivered his judgment today, ruling in favour of the council.

His main reason for refusing the review was because it was brought out of time, although he admitted the council never set out to consult about its outsourcing programme at all.

He added: “If the application for judicial review had been made in time I would have held that the council had not complied with its obligations under section 3 (2) of the 1999 Act in respect of the decisions taken in 2010/11 to outsource the performance of its functions and services, covered by the proposed NSCSO and DRS contracts.”

Speaking to the Times Series Ms Nash said she plans to appeal against the decision and continue her fight for open democracy.

She said: “The law is an ass. Now a private company is going to be able to control our money – I’m going to go to appeal and hopefully something can be done about it.

“I wanted to find out what the contract is about and what is going to happen but unfortunately to date I still haven’t been able to find out. It’s nonsense.

“They need to be open and above board. We voted them in to look after the vulnerable and our services – it doesn’t matter if you’re rich or poor you have to pay for services – and it’s their duty to look after us and when they don’t do that, and they hide what they’re doing that is completely against the process of local government.”

Ms Nash fears the refusal of this judicial review will have a damning effect on the rest of the country as councils are allowed to get away with making fundamental decisions without proper consultation.

She said: “This decision has far-reaching implications – if Barnet can get away with it then the rest of the country can. We’ll end up not as a third world country, but a fourth world, not being allowed to have a control of any of our own money and councils will do exactly what they please when they please.

“This is completely against our human rights.”

Campaign group Barnet Alliance for Public Services, which supported Ms Nash’s case, says it will stand by her decision to appeal.

Speaking on behalf of the group, Vicki Morris said: “It’s disappointing but we’re not downcast about the decision.

“Our campaign will continue – we’ll be trying to make Barnet Tories pay the political price for their decisions. Jobs will be lost from the borough, deterioration of services and loss of accountability are all things we’re concerned will happen if One Barnet goes ahead.”

But as far as the council is concerned, the case was a “complete victory” for the authority.

Commenting on the judgement, council leader Councillor Richard Cornelius, said: “This is a clear and complete victory for the council. We won and our opponents lost.  

“More importantly it is very good news for Barnet residents, Barnet taxpayers and, in particular for anyone who relies on Barnet Council services. We can now get on with making budget savings of £12million a year in our back-office costs while investing in service improvements and protecting our frontline services.

“The alternative cuts to front line services we would have had to make would have been horrendous.

“Lord Justice Underhill could not have been clearer in ruling the application for judicial review as out of time and in accepting that the council had met equalities criteria.

"I hope the applicant and her lawyers will carefully consider the wise words of the Judge before embarking upon an appeal and incurring even more costs that will have to be met from public funds. This judicial review has already cost the council in excess of £300,000 and I would rather be spending that money on services to residents. The applicant’s legal costs are also being met from the public purse as she is legally aided.”