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

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll