header-logo header-logo

20 July 2012
Issue: 7523 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Costs—Order for costs—Interested party in planning case

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll