header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
20 July 2012
Issue: 7523 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Costs—Order for costs—Interested party in planning case

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2012] EWHC 1785 (Admin), [2012] All ER (D) 83 (Jul)

Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court (London), Jeremy Stuart-Smith QC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court), 4 Jul 2012

In planning cases, costs remain in the discretion of the court and an interested party developer will not normally be entitled to its costs unless it can show that there was a separate issue or interest where the developer’s interest was discrete from that of the defendant secretary of state.

Gwion Lewis (instructed by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea) for the local authority. Stephen Whale (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State. Reuben Taylor (instructed by Richard Max & Co LLP) for the trustees.

By the proceedings, under s 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the claimant local authority sought unsuccessfully to challenge the validity of the decision of the secretary

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll