Meritgold Ltd v First Secretary of State & Anor [2003] EWHC 2856 (Admin) (11 November 2003)

Meritgold Ltd v First Secretary of State & Anor [2003] EWHC 2856 (Admin) (11 November 2003)

The Inspector considered all relevant factors and exercised planning judgment; no error of law or procedural irregularity was identified. The application is simply an attempt to reargue the merits and is dismissed.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 2856 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Meritgold Limited; First Defendant: The First Secretary of State; Second Defendant: Barnet London Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Section 288 Application Under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment on Application and Costs
Outcome
Application dismissed; costs awarded to Defendant
Legal Topics
Quashing Planning Decisions, Planning Appeals, Judicial Review, Costs Assessment
Administrative Law Planning Law Quashing Planning Decisions Planning Appeals Judicial Review Costs Assessment

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Meritgold Limited

Claimant

The First Secretary of State

First Defendant

Barnet London Borough Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Section 288 Application Under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment on Application and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law in considering the planning merits and evidence
  2. 2 Whether adequate reasons were given for the decision
  3. 3 Whether an adjournment should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector considered all relevant factors and exercised planning judgment; no error of law or procedural irregularity was identified. The application is simply an attempt to reargue the merits and is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; costs awarded to Defendant

Orders

  • Application to quash decision refused
  • Adjournment refused