Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, in planning proceedings in which the Applicants challenged a decision by the First Respondent to grant the Notice party permission to amend its plan to build a windfarm by granting permission for the respondent to increase the height of the wind turbines, elects not to refer any questions of EU law to the Court of Justice of the European Union, despite the Applicants' suggestion that it do so; and the court further refuses the claim for certiorari and makes orders in terms of the declaration to that the State Respondents had failed in their duty, after this point was conceded by the Respondents, and the Applicants elected not to pursue the claim for mandamus in light of this concession.
EU law - Planning Permission - Wind Turbines - Habitats Directive - Birds Directive.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.