JR Charles & Son Ltd. v Barnet London Borough Council

JR Charles & Son Ltd. v Barnet London Borough Council

The justices were entitled to conclude that trees T1 and T2 were part of the group of eight Cypress trees protected by the Tree Preservation Order made in 1973, and that the Order applied to them on 28 May 2003, regardless of precise species identification or age, provided the trees could be identified as those covered by the Order.

Parties
Claimant: JR Charles & Son Limited; Defendant: Barnet London Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (case Stated From Magistrates) / Appeal From Magistrates' Court to High Court (divisional Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions and magistrates' decisions upheld.
Legal Topics
Tree Preservation Orders, Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Criminal Liability for Breach of Planning Controls
Planning Law Environmental Law Criminal Law Tree Preservation Orders Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Criminal Liability for Breach of Planning Controls

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JR Charles & Son Limited

Claimant

Barnet London Borough Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (case Stated From Magistrates) / Appeal From Magistrates' Court to High Court (divisional Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether trees T1 and T2 were covered by the Tree Preservation Order made in 1973
  2. 2 Whether the species or age of the trees was relevant to the conviction
  3. 3 Whether the justices were entitled to convict without a finding as to the age of the trees

Ratio Decidendi

The justices were entitled to conclude that trees T1 and T2 were part of the group of eight Cypress trees protected by the Tree Preservation Order made in 1973, and that the Order applied to them on 28 May 2003, regardless of precise species identification or age, provided the trees could be identified as those covered by the Order.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions and magistrates' decisions upheld.

Orders

  • No order as to costs for the application to amend the case stated on 9 March 2005.
  • Appellants to pay respondents' costs of the hearing on 16 May 2005, to be assessed if not agreed.