London Borough of Newham, R (on the application of) v Commissioners for HMRC

London Borough of Newham, R (on the application of) v Commissioners for HMRC

The Good Hotel is not a 'building' for the purposes of the CIL Regulations because it was brought onto site readymade, is not sufficiently permanent or physically attached, and does not meet the statutory or contextual definition required for CIL liability.

Parties
Claimant: London Borough of Newham; Defendants: Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs; Interested Party: Good Hotel London Limited; Interested Party: GBZ V. O. F; Interested Party: Royal Docks Management Authority Limited; Interested Party: GLA Land and Property Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission to Apply for Judicial Review
Outcome
Permission refused
Legal Topics
Community Infrastructure Levy, Statutory Interpretation, Definition of Building
Planning Law Administrative Law Community Infrastructure Levy Statutory Interpretation Definition of Building

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Newham

Claimant

Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Defendants

Good Hotel London Limited

Interested Party

GBZ V. O. F

Interested Party

Royal Docks Management Authority Limited

Interested Party

GLA Land and Property Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission to Apply for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Good Hotel constitutes a 'building' for the purposes of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010
  2. 2 Whether the appointed person misapplied the law in determining CIL liability

Ratio Decidendi

The Good Hotel is not a 'building' for the purposes of the CIL Regulations because it was brought onto site readymade, is not sufficiently permanent or physically attached, and does not meet the statutory or contextual definition required for CIL liability.

Court Disposition

Permission refused

Orders

  • Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.