Smith & Anor v The First Secretary of State & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 355 (15 March 2005)

Smith & Anor v The First Secretary of State & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 355 (15 March 2005)

The judge below was correct in rejecting all grounds of challenge to the inspector's decision for the reasons given in his judgment. The inspector's reasoning, as relied on by the judge, was correct and there is no sufficient basis to grant permission to appeal at this stage.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 355
Parties
Claimant/appellant: N Smith (aka John Arthur and Lennie Smith); Defendant/respondent: The First Secretary of State; Defendant/respondent: Mid Bedfordshire District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal (administrative Law) / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission application adjourned to a court of three; appeal to follow if permission is granted.
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Gypsy and Traveller Sites, Judicial Review, Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Administrative Law Planning Law Planning Permission Gypsy and Traveller Sites Judicial Review Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N Smith (aka John Arthur and Lennie Smith)

Claimant/appellant

The First Secretary of State

Defendant/respondent

Mid Bedfordshire District Council

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (administrative Law) / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning inspector erred in law by considering proximity to other gypsy sites as a relevant factor
  2. 2 Whether the inspector erred in law regarding the 'trend' or 'shift' of caravans from authorised to unauthorised sites
  3. 3 Whether the inspector's decision was legally flawed on the grounds advanced by the appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The judge below was correct in rejecting all grounds of challenge to the inspector's decision for the reasons given in his judgment. The inspector's reasoning, as relied on by the judge, was correct and there is no sufficient basis to grant permission to appeal at this stage.

Court Disposition

Permission application adjourned to a court of three; appeal to follow if permission is granted.

Orders

  • Permission application adjourned to a court of three.
  • Appeal to follow if permission is granted.