Thomas (t/a RT Properties) v National Assembly for Wales & Anor

Thomas (t/a RT Properties) v National Assembly for Wales & Anor

The Inspector failed to address a principal important controversial issue—namely, the long-standing existence of a similar advertisement without objection—which was central to the Claimant's case, thereby failing to provide sufficient reasons for his decision. This failure caused prejudice to the Claimant and warrants quashing the Inspector's decision. However, the Inspector was not under a duty to determine whether deemed consent existed in the absence of an express request for such a determination.

Parties
Claimant: Roy Granville David Thomas (trading as RT Properties); First Defendant: The National Assembly for Wales; Second Defendant: Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / Judgment on Application to Quash Inspector's Decision
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; Inspector's decision quashed on ground 1, not on ground 2.
Legal Topics
Town and Country Planning, Control of Advertisements, Duty to Give Reasons, Deemed Consent, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Planning Law Town and Country Planning Control of Advertisements Duty to Give Reasons Deemed Consent 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roy Granville David Thomas (trading as RT Properties)

Claimant

The National Assembly for Wales

First Defendant

Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / Judgment on Application to Quash Inspector's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting a central contention of the Claimant's case
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector had jurisdiction or duty to determine if deemed consent existed for the advertisement

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector failed to address a principal important controversial issue—namely, the long-standing existence of a similar advertisement without objection—which was central to the Claimant's case, thereby failing to provide sufficient reasons for his decision. This failure caused prejudice to the Claimant and warrants quashing the Inspector's decision. However, the Inspector was not under a duty to determine whether deemed consent existed in the absence of an express request for such a determination.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; Inspector's decision quashed on ground 1, not on ground 2.

Orders

  • Quashing order in respect of the Inspector’s determination of the appeal; the appeal to be re-determined.