First Corporate Shipping Ltd v North Somerset Council [2001] EWCA Civ 693 (4 May 2001)

First Corporate Shipping Ltd v North Somerset Council [2001] EWCA Civ 693 (4 May 2001)

North Somerset Council's refusal to hold a further local inquiry was not perverse or Wednesbury unreasonable; the inspector's recommendation was based on erroneous assumptions about Policy E.14 and land allocation, and the applicant had sufficient opportunity to present its case. The Council acted within its discretion and properly considered objections.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 693
Parties
Claimant/appellant: First Corporate Shipping Limited; Defendant/respondent: North Somerset Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 287 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Court of Appeal, Post Judgment From Queen's Bench Division Administrative Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Local Plans, Judicial Review, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Green Belt Policy, Structure Plan Interpretation
Administrative Law Planning Law Local Plans Judicial Review Wednesbury Unreasonableness Green Belt Policy Structure Plan Interpretation

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

First Corporate Shipping Limited

Claimant/appellant

North Somerset Council

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Section 287 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Court of Appeal, Post Judgment From Queen's Bench Division Administrative Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether North Somerset Council's refusal to hold a further local inquiry was unlawful or Wednesbury unreasonable
  2. 2 Whether the Council properly rejected the inspector's recommendation for allocation of additional land for Royal Portbury Dock expansion

Ratio Decidendi

North Somerset Council's refusal to hold a further local inquiry was not perverse or Wednesbury unreasonable; the inspector's recommendation was based on erroneous assumptions about Policy E.14 and land allocation, and the applicant had sufficient opportunity to present its case. The Council acted within its discretion and properly considered objections.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs subject to detailed assessment