Telford and Wrekin Council v Secretary Of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor

Telford and Wrekin Council v Secretary Of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor

The claim form was not served within the six-week statutory period as required by Practice Direction 54D. The claimant did not take all reasonable steps to ensure timely service, nor did it act promptly in seeking an extension. There is no lacuna in the rules and no basis for a purposive interpretation to extend time. The court has no jurisdiction.

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
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Planning Statutory Review / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Extension of Time
Outcome
Claim dismissed for want of jurisdiction; application for extension of time refused.
Legal Topics
Statutory Review, Time Limits, Extension of Time, Jurisdiction, Service of Claim Form
Administrative Law Planning Law Statutory Review Time Limits 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 3 Authorities cited 10 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 / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim form was served in time under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Practice Direction 54D
  2. 2 Whether the court should grant an extension of time for service of the claim form

Ratio Decidendi

The claim form was not served within the six-week statutory period as required by Practice Direction 54D. The claimant did not take all reasonable steps to ensure timely service, nor did it act promptly in seeking an extension. There is no lacuna in the rules and no basis for a purposive interpretation to extend time. The court has no jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The court has no jurisdiction as the claim form was out of time.
  • The application for extension of time is refused.