O'Reilly, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Anor [2005] EWHC 1286 (Admin) (09 June 2005)

O'Reilly, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Anor [2005] EWHC 1286 (Admin) (09 June 2005)

The Inspector's conclusion that the claimant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, a continuous 10-year use of the premises for car repairs was open to him on the evidence; there was no procedural unfairness or perversity in his approach or reasoning.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 1286 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Daniel James O'Reilly; First Defendant: First Secretary of State; Second Defendant: London Borough of Brent
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal Under S.289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Appeal From Planning Inspector's Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice Appeal, Lawful Use, Procedural Fairness, Evidential Burden, Costs
Planning Law Administrative Law Enforcement Notice Appeal Lawful Use Procedural Fairness Evidential Burden Costs

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Daniel James O'Reilly

Claimant

First Secretary of State

First Defendant

London Borough of Brent

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal Under S.289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Appeal From Planning Inspector's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Planning Inspector erred in rejecting the claimant's ground (d) appeal for failure to prove 10 years' continuous use for car repairs
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector's reasoning was perverse or procedurally unfair

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector's conclusion that the claimant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, a continuous 10-year use of the premises for car repairs was open to him on the evidence; there was no procedural unfairness or perversity in his approach or reasoning.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant to pay the first defendant's costs, summarily assessed at £3,000