In Hillingdon LBC v SoS for Transport [2017] EWHC 121 (Admin) Cranston J has held that on a proper construction of Section 13(1) of the Planning Act 2008, a legal challenge relating to a National Policy Statement could be brought only in the six-week period after the statement was designated or published. The Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the claimants’ application for judicial review of a decision of the Secretary of State for Transport to select for inclusion in a draft National Policy Statement a proposal for a third runway at Heathrow Airport. Read more »

In Southwark Council v Various Lessees of the St Saviour’s Estate (2017) UKUT 10 (LC) the Council appealed against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal preventing it from recovering the whole amount it had expended on works to residential flats through the service charge payable by the occupants. The Council submitted that the FTT had not applied the correct test on disrepair, and erred in finding that there was little evidence of the condition of the communal fire doors and in allowing an arbitrary figure of 50% without giving the parties the opportunity to comment.  The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal.  The FTT had been unable to accept the Council’s evidence on the communal fire doors and was not satisfied with the lessees’ evidence. It had been entitled to take that view of the evidence, to accept the fire risk assessments, and to take a broad-brush approach to the appropriate allowable figure.  The 50% figure was not arbitrary, but resulted from the FTT’s evaluation of the available evidence.  Had the FTT used its own knowledge or expertise to challenge the Council’s methodology or figures during the course of the proceedings, it would have been appropriate to give the parties an opportunity to comment.  However, after the close of the evidence, it had simply evaluated the evidence and reached a decision.  It had been entitled to take a robust approach and to arrive at a figure based on the evidence together with its own knowledge and expertise.  It would only be in exceptional cases that, during the course of its deliberations, a Tribunal would ventilate what it was proposing before reaching a final determination. Read more »

In Croydon LBC v Lopes (2017) EWHC 33 (QB) Lewis J held that the principles to be applied in deciding whether costs should be awarded in judicial review cases where the parties had agreed on the proper disposition of the underlying proceedings established in M v Croydon LBC [2012] 1 WLR 2607 were applicable to appeals against decisions on entitlement to housing under the Housing Act 1996, Section 204.  A local authority was entitled to its costs of an appeal withdrawn by a claimant where, had the appeal proceeded, it would have been the successful party. The precise approach depends upon the particular facts and circumstances of the case. Where a party has obtained the entire relief sought on the statutory appeal, so that that party can be said to be wholly successful, then, in general, that party should recover his or her costs unless there is some good reason to depart from that position. Where a party has succeeded in part, then a number of factors may be relevant as explained in paragraph 62 of the decision in R (M) v Croydon London Borough Council. In such circumstances, it may be appropriate to make no order for costs, or, if it is reasonably clear who would have succeeded if the appeal had gone to a hearing, that may indicate that that party should be awarded his or her costs. Where a settlement is reached which does not in fact reflect the claimant’s claims, it may be possible in some cases to consider the underlying claims and determine who would have been the successful parties and award costs accordingly. In other cases, that may not be possible and it may be that the appropriate order is no order for costs. It may also be that the appropriate order may be no order for costs where the judge cannot sensibly and fairly make an order in favour of either party without a disproportionate expenditure of judicial time: see per Lord Neuberger M.R., as he then was, at paragraphs 60 to 65 and per Stanley Burnton LJ at paragraph 77 in R (M) v Croydon London Borough Council.