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.
Successful party in judicial review proceedings fails in its own appeal
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal, in planning and development proceedings where the appellant is appealing against the decision of the High Court to quash the decision of a County Council in his favour, which was awarded in circumstances where counsel for the County Council indicated that it would concede the judicial review in the terms expressed at a certain paragraph in the statement of grounds, which was ultimately not acceptable to the appellant, dismisses the appellants appeal where the trial judge did not err in law when: (1) finding that the respondent’s decision to disregard two sections of legislation when deciding to declare the roads and footpaths in the housing estate as public roads was not unlawful; and (2) allowing the County Council to recover the costs of the proceedings since the date it indicated that it would concede judicial review.
Appellant's appeal against decision of the High Court in his favour - judicial proceedings where appellant succeeded in quashing decision of county council - appellant argues that trial judge should have made order based upon additional grounds pleaded by him - proceedings related to dispute between appellant and notice party concerning the entitlement of the occupants of phase 2 to use a roadway passing over phase 1 to access the public road - first ground of appeal - trial judge erred when it found the respondent’s decision to disregard s.11(1)(b)(i) and 11(1)(b)(iv) of the Roads Act - when deciding to declare the roads and footpaths in the housing estate as public roads was not unlawful - court finds this ground as completely misconceived - second ground - trial judge erred in allowing respondent to recover the costs of the proceedings since May 2022 - appellant argued that since statement of opposition not filed, it was not before court - and therefore not entitled to any costs - court notes that judge in charge of judicial review list warned appellant of the risk of costs order against him should he continue - thus second ground of appeal rejected - appellant unsuccessful.
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.
