Schlesinger, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor

Schlesinger, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor

The Inspector's decision was not flawed as policy ST19 was not a saved policy and thus not a material consideration; the Inspector followed proper procedure, considered all relevant matters, and there was no procedural unfairness or error. The application is dismissed and costs awarded to the first defendant.

Parties
Claimant: Matilda Schlesinger; 1st Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; 2nd Defendant: London Borough of Hackney
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / Judgment After Substantive Hearing and Costs Determination
Outcome
Application dismissed; costs awarded to first defendant; transcript of judgment to be provided at public expense; time for applying for permission to appeal extended.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of Planning Decisions, Material Considerations in Planning, Costs in Judicial Review, Development Plan Policies, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Planning Law Judicial Review of Planning Decisions Material Considerations in Planning Costs in Judicial Review Development Plan Policies Procedural Fairness

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matilda Schlesinger

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

1st Defendant

London Borough of Hackney

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / Judgment After Substantive Hearing and Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector failed to consider material considerations, specifically policy ST19 and a report on the Orthodox Jewish community
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to ensure equality of arms and procedural fairness
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector took into account irrelevant considerations

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector's decision was not flawed as policy ST19 was not a saved policy and thus not a material consideration; the Inspector followed proper procedure, considered all relevant matters, and there was no procedural unfairness or error. The application is dismissed and costs awarded to the first defendant.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; costs awarded to first defendant; transcript of judgment to be provided at public expense; time for applying for permission to appeal extended.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • Claimant to pay first defendant's costs, summarily assessed at £4,696