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

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

The Inspector made no error of law in her findings or conclusions regarding legitimate expectation, human rights, bias, the definition of 'building', correction of enforcement notices, or the lawfulness of use. The statutory regime is a complete code, and the Inspector's decisions were rational, procedurally fair, and within her powers. The claimants failed to discharge the burden of proof for lawfulness of use, and no injustice resulted from the correction of enforcement notices.

Parties
First Claimant: Thomas Flattery; Second Claimant: Japanese Parts Centre Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Nottinghamshire County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Statutory Challenge Under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Sections 288 and 289 / Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed; leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Legitimate Expectation, Human Rights (echr), Bias and Fair Hearing, Planning Enforcement, Lawful Development Certificates, Correction of Enforcement Notices, Material Change of Use, Definition of Building, Costs in Planning Proceedings
Administrative Law Planning Law Human Rights Legitimate Expectation Human Rights (echr) Bias and Fair Hearing Planning Enforcement Lawful Development Certificates +4 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 8 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Flattery

First Claimant

Japanese Parts Centre Limited

Second Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Nottinghamshire County Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Statutory Challenge Under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Sections 288 and 289 / Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law regarding legitimate expectation and estoppel in planning enforcement
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to properly consider or breached the claimants' human rights under the ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector acted with bias or denied a fair hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector made no error of law in her findings or conclusions regarding legitimate expectation, human rights, bias, the definition of 'building', correction of enforcement notices, or the lawfulness of use. The statutory regime is a complete code, and the Inspector's decisions were rational, procedurally fair, and within her powers. The claimants failed to discharge the burden of proof for lawfulness of use, and no injustice resulted from the correction of enforcement notices.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 dismissed.
  • Leave to appeal under section 289 refused.