Eco-Energy (GB) Ltd v First Secretary of State & Ors [2004] EWCA Civ 1566 (09 November 2004)
Eco-Energy (GB) Ltd lacked standing as a 'person aggrieved' under section 288 because it had no legal or equitable interest in the land at the relevant time, and the oral assignment was ineffective. Equitable estoppel could not arise between Mr Clarke and his company. Substitution of Mr Clarke as claimant was not permitted after expiry of the statutory time limit, and CPR 19.5 did not apply.
- Citation
- [2004] EWCA Civ 1566
- Parties
- Claimant/appellant: Eco-Energy (GB) Limited; Defendant/respondent: First Secretary of State; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for Transport; Defendant/respondent: Durham County Council
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 09 November 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) on Appeal From High Court, Administrative Court
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Standing (person Aggrieved), Assignment of Interests, Equitable Estoppel, Constructive Trust, Civil Procedure Rule 19.5, Limitation Periods
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Eco-Energy (GB) Limited
Claimant/appellant
First Secretary of State
Defendant/respondent
Secretary of State for Transport
Defendant/respondent
Durham County Council
Defendant/respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) on Appeal From High Court, Administrative Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Eco-Energy (GB) Ltd had standing as a 'person aggrieved' under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
- 2 Whether an oral assignment of an option over land conferred a sufficient interest for standing
- 3 Whether an equitable interest or estoppel could arise between a sole shareholder and his company to confer standing
Ratio Decidendi
Eco-Energy (GB) Ltd lacked standing as a 'person aggrieved' under section 288 because it had no legal or equitable interest in the land at the relevant time, and the oral assignment was ineffective. Equitable estoppel could not arise between Mr Clarke and his company. Substitution of Mr Clarke as claimant was not permitted after expiry of the statutory time limit, and CPR 19.5 did not apply.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs assessed at £12,925; if not paid within 28 days, Durham County Council may return to court to seek an order against Mr Robert Clark.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment