Stephen Luck, R (on the application of) v Bracknell Forest Borough Council

Stephen Luck, R (on the application of) v Bracknell Forest Borough Council

A disqualifying event under Regulation 54D does not need to occur during the clawback period; it can occur before its commencement. The sale of the property constituted a disqualifying event, triggering withdrawal of the self-build exemption and liability for CIL. Regulation 65(7) does not confer a broad discretion to waive CIL liability, but only allows withdrawal of erroneous liability notices. The Council acted lawfully and within the statutory scheme; any double recovery was a consequence of the Claimant's failure to use available mechanisms under the Regulations.

Parties
Claimant: Mr Stephen Luck; Defendant: Bracknell Forest Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed; permission for judicial review granted but substantive challenge refused.
Legal Topics
Community Infrastructure Levy, Self Build Exemption, Statutory Interpretation, Disqualifying Event, Local Authority Discretion
Planning Law Administrative Law Tax Law Community Infrastructure Levy Self Build Exemption Statutory Interpretation Disqualifying Event Local Authority Discretion

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Stephen Luck

Claimant

Bracknell Forest Borough Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a disqualifying event under Regulation 54D must occur during the clawback period for self-build exemption withdrawal
  2. 2 Whether the Council has discretion to waive CIL liability or withdraw liability notices under Regulation 65(7)
  3. 3 Whether the Council's actions amounted to unlawful double recovery of CIL

Ratio Decidendi

A disqualifying event under Regulation 54D does not need to occur during the clawback period; it can occur before its commencement. The sale of the property constituted a disqualifying event, triggering withdrawal of the self-build exemption and liability for CIL. Regulation 65(7) does not confer a broad discretion to waive CIL liability, but only allows withdrawal of erroneous liability notices. The Council acted lawfully and within the statutory scheme; any double recovery was a consequence of the Claimant's failure to use available mechanisms under the Regulations.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; permission for judicial review granted but substantive challenge refused.

Orders

  • Permission for judicial review against the 4th September 2025 decision granted.
  • Challenge to both decisions on both grounds refused.