Ocean Outdoor UK Limited v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors

Ocean Outdoor UK Limited v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors

The Inspector was entitled to decide the appeal based on the material submitted by the parties; the Claimant was aware of the disputed issue and had opportunity to submit evidence. There was no procedural unfairness, breach of the Tameside duty, or failure to consider relevant policy differences. The procedure adopted was fair and lawful.

Parties
Claimant: Ocean Outdoor UK Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: London Borough of Hounslow; Third Defendant: Hyundai Motor UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Statutory Review (planning Appeal) / Judgment After Oral Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Advertisement Consent, Appeal Procedure, Local Planning Policy, Statutory Interpretation
Administrative Law Planning Law Procedural Fairness Advertisement Consent Appeal Procedure Local Planning Policy Statutory 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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ocean Outdoor UK Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

London Borough of Hounslow

Second Defendant

Hyundai Motor UK Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Statutory Review (planning Appeal) / Judgment After Oral Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector breached the common law duty of fairness by failing to provide the Claimant an opportunity to verify active marketing of the site
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector breached the Tameside duty by failing to acquaint herself with relevant information about active marketing
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector failed to consider differences between Local Plan Policy CC5 and national Planning Practice Guidance

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector was entitled to decide the appeal based on the material submitted by the parties; the Claimant was aware of the disputed issue and had opportunity to submit evidence. There was no procedural unfairness, breach of the Tameside duty, or failure to consider relevant policy differences. The procedure adopted was fair and lawful.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed