header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Town and country planning—Permission for development—Revocation

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
27 July 2012
Issue: 7524 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Health and Safety Executive v Wolverhampton City Council [2012] UKSC 34, [2012] All ER (D) 172 (Jul)

Supreme Court, Lord Hope DP, Lord Walker, Lord Dyson, Lord Sumption and Lord Carnwath SCJJ, 18 Jul 2012

In considering under s 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 whether it appears to a local planning authority to be expedient to revoke or modify a permission to develop land, it is open to that local planning authority to have regard to the compensation that it might have to pay under s 107.

Philip Coppel QC and Carine Patry Hoskins (instructed by the Treasury Solicitors) for the HSE. Robert Griffiths QC, Estelle Dehon (instructed by Wolverhampton City Council Legal Services) for the authority. James Maurici (instructed by Reed Smith LLP) for the authority.

The defendant was the local planning authority and the hazardous substances authority for the relevant area. The claimant was the Health & Safety Executive (HSE). The interested party was a private company engaged in the provision

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
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Law Society calls for clarity on AML
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: Turning corporate liability into opportunity
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
NLJ this week: A prince no more?
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
NLJ this week: Shareholder secrecy sunk
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
NLJ this week: The expanding remit of national security law
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll