Meritgold Ltd v First Secretary of State & Anor

Meritgold Ltd v First Secretary of State & Anor

The Inspector had regard to all relevant factors and exercised his planning judgment. No error of law or procedural unfairness was identified. The application was simply an attempt to reargue the planning merits, which is not permissible under section 288.

Parties
Claimant: Meritgold Limited; First Defendant: First Secretary of State; Second Defendant: Barnet London Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / Judgment After Application to Quash Planning Decision
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Quashing Planning Decisions, Judicial Review of Administrative Action, Costs in Judicial Review
Planning Law Administrative Law Quashing Planning Decisions Judicial Review of Administrative Action Costs in Judicial Review

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

Parties

Meritgold Limited

Claimant

First Secretary of State

First Defendant

Barnet London Borough Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / Judgment After Application to Quash Planning Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law in dismissing the appeal to retain and alter Flat 7, Foley Court
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to have regard to material considerations
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector gave adequate reasons for his decision

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector had regard to all relevant factors and exercised his planning judgment. No error of law or procedural unfairness was identified. The application was simply an attempt to reargue the planning merits, which is not permissible under section 288.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to quash the Inspector's decision is dismissed
  • Claimant to pay the Defendant's costs, summarily assessed at £4,000