Durant & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Durant & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

The Inspector did not breach statutory hearing rules or procedural fairness, properly considered both the availability and suitability of alternative accommodation, adequately addressed Article 8 ECHR rights, and provided clear and sufficient reasons for her decision. The grounds of challenge are not properly arguable.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Anthony Durant; Claimant/appellant: Horace Durant; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Defendant/respondent: Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review and Statutory Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application under s.288 dismissed; permission to proceed with s.289 appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Green Belt Development, Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation, Procedural Fairness, Article 8 ECHR, Article 6 ECHR, Statutory Appeals Under TCPA 1990
Planning Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Green Belt Development Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Procedural Fairness Article 8 ECHR Article 6 ECHR +1 more

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Durant

Claimant/appellant

Horace Durant

Claimant/appellant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Defendant/respondent

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review and Statutory Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector breached statutory hearing rules or procedural fairness by accepting late evidence
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector properly considered the availability and suitability of alternative accommodation for the Claimants
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector adequately considered the Claimants' Article 8 ECHR rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector did not breach statutory hearing rules or procedural fairness, properly considered both the availability and suitability of alternative accommodation, adequately addressed Article 8 ECHR rights, and provided clear and sufficient reasons for her decision. The grounds of challenge are not properly arguable.

Court Disposition

Application under s.288 dismissed; permission to proceed with s.289 appeal refused.