TayTime Limited v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors

TayTime Limited v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors

The Inspector erred in law by dismissing the appeal outright without following the statutory procedure under section 79(6A) TCPA 1990 to ascertain whether MLL, through its Liquidators, wished to pursue or withdraw the appeal. The Inspector conflated the making of the appeal with its lawful pursuit. However, the Inspector was entitled to conclude that Taytime was not acting as agent for MLL but was seeking to substitute itself as appellant, which is not permitted under section 78 TCPA 1990. The statutory right of appeal under section 78 TCPA 1990 cannot be assigned to a third party.

Parties
Claimant: Taytime Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities; Second Defendant: Maidstone Borough Council; Third Defendant: David Padden
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Statutory Review Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Application allowed in part; Ground 2(i) (procedural error) succeeds, Ground 2(ii) (agency) dismissed.
Legal Topics
Statutory Appeals Under TCPA 1990, Agency in Insolvency Context, Assignment of Statutory Rights, Procedural Fairness in Planning Appeals
Planning Law Administrative Law Insolvency Law Statutory Appeals Under TCPA 1990 Agency in Insolvency Context Assignment of Statutory Rights Procedural Fairness in Planning Appeals

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Taytime Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

First Defendant

Maidstone Borough Council

Second Defendant

David Padden

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Statutory Review Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law in dismissing the appeal without following the statutory procedure for want of prosecution under section 79(6A) TCPA 1990
  2. 2 Whether Taytime Limited was validly acting as agent for Monk Lakes Limited (in liquidation) in pursuing the planning appeal
  3. 3 Whether the statutory right of appeal under section 78 TCPA 1990 can be assigned to a third party

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector erred in law by dismissing the appeal outright without following the statutory procedure under section 79(6A) TCPA 1990 to ascertain whether MLL, through its Liquidators, wished to pursue or withdraw the appeal. The Inspector conflated the making of the appeal with its lawful pursuit. However, the Inspector was entitled to conclude that Taytime was not acting as agent for MLL but was seeking to substitute itself as appellant, which is not permitted under section 78 TCPA 1990. The statutory right of appeal under section 78 TCPA 1990 cannot be assigned to a third party.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; Ground 2(i) (procedural error) succeeds, Ground 2(ii) (agency) dismissed.

Orders

  • The application under section 288 TCPA 1990 is allowed on Ground 2(i) (save in regard to assignment).
  • Ground 2(ii) is dismissed.