header-logo header-logo

Costs—Order for costs—Interested party in planning case

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

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll