Stamford Chamber of Trade & Commerce, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Stamford Chamber of Trade & Commerce, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

The court exercised its discretion to order the claimants to pay the costs of both defendants in full, finding it reasonable given both defendants had separate decisions challenged and submissions were justified. Permission to appeal was refused as the judge found no real prospect of success and that well-established principles had been applied.

Parties
First Claimant: Stamford Chamber of Trade and Commerce; Second Claimant: F H Gilman & Co; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: South Kesteven District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Costs Ruling and Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Claimants to pay costs of both defendants; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Costs, Judicial Review, Planning Decisions
Administrative Law Planning Law Costs Judicial Review Planning Decisions

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stamford Chamber of Trade and Commerce

First Claimant

F H Gilman & Co

Second Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

South Kesteven District Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Costs Ruling and Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants should pay the costs of both defendants in full
  2. 2 Whether permission to appeal should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion to order the claimants to pay the costs of both defendants in full, finding it reasonable given both defendants had separate decisions challenged and submissions were justified. Permission to appeal was refused as the judge found no real prospect of success and that well-established principles had been applied.

Court Disposition

Claimants to pay costs of both defendants; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Claimants shall pay the costs of both defendants, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.
  • Permission to appeal is refused.