header-logo header-logo

27 January 2012 / Keith Davies
Issue: 7498 / Categories: Features , Judicial review , Local government , Public
printer mail-detail

No room for doubt

Keith Davies turns the spotlight onto a Thameside Tudor tiff

The Court of Appeal heard and decided an appeal on 24 June 2011 between Garner and Others (appellant) and Elmbridge Borough Council and Others (respondent), with Gladedale Group Ltd and Network Rail Infrastructure (interested parties) (Garner and Ors v Elmbridge Borough Council and Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 891). The appellant had brought proceedings for judicial review of a decision by the council as local planning authority to grant permission for development at Hampton Court station at East Molesey in Surrey, situated on the south bank of the Thames directly opposite Hampton Court Palace. Ouseley J, in the administrative court of the Queen’s Bench Division, dismissed the application, and the appellant appealed, again unsuccessfully. The judgments do full justice to the presentation and analysis by all parties of the legal issues and the planning problems involved, which are complex (maybe more so in theory than practice).

Part of that complexity comes from the fact that the appellant, Keith Garner, with a

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

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