Telford And Wrekin Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor [2023] EWHC 2439 (Admin) (12 September 2023)

Telford And Wrekin Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor [2023] EWHC 2439 (Admin) (12 September 2023)

The claim form was not served within the statutory six week period as required by Practice Direction 54D. The claimant did not take all reasonable steps to ensure timely service nor act promptly in seeking an extension. Therefore, the court has no jurisdiction and extension of time is refused.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 2439 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Telford and Wrekin Council; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities; Second Defendant: Greentech Invest UK (1) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Planning Statutory Review Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Application for Declaration of No Jurisdiction and Extension of Time
Outcome
Claim dismissed for want of jurisdiction; application for extension of time refused.
Legal Topics
Statutory Review, Extension of Time, Jurisdiction, Service of Claim Form
Administrative Law Planning Law Statutory Review Extension of Time Jurisdiction Service of Claim Form

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Telford and Wrekin Council

Claimant

Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

First Defendant

Greentech Invest UK (1) Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Planning Statutory Review Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Application for Declaration of No Jurisdiction and Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim form was served within the statutory six week period
  2. 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether an extension of time for service should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The claim form was not served within the statutory six week period as required by Practice Direction 54D. The claimant did not take all reasonable steps to ensure timely service nor act promptly in seeking an extension. Therefore, the court has no jurisdiction and extension of time is refused.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed for want of jurisdiction; application for extension of time refused.

Orders

  • Declaration that court has no jurisdiction due to out-of-time service
  • Refusal of application for extension of time