Braithwaite & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v East Suffolk Council [2022] EWHC 691 (Admin) (28 March 2022)

Braithwaite & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v East Suffolk Council [2022] EWHC 691 (Admin) (28 March 2022)

The challenge to the 2020 Liability Notice was brought very late and without good reason; the 2020 LN remains valid until quashed by a court; the Defendant was entitled to issue a revised liability notice under regulation 65(5); defects in service and timing did not affect the amount of CIL payable; permission for judicial review is refused.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 691 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: George Braithwaite; Claimant: Melton Meadows Properties Limited; Defendant: East Suffolk Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission
Outcome
Permission to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Community Infrastructure Levy, Judicial Review, Delay in Proceedings, Validity of Statutory Notices
Planning Law Administrative Law Community Infrastructure Levy Judicial Review Delay in Proceedings Validity of Statutory Notices

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

Parties

George Braithwaite

Claimant

Melton Meadows Properties Limited

Claimant

East Suffolk Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2021 Liability Notice was lawfully served under regulation 65(1) of the CIL Regulations
  2. 2 Whether the 2021 Liability Notice could be treated as a valid revised notice under regulation 65(5)
  3. 3 Whether the challenge to the 2020 Liability Notice was brought in time

Ratio Decidendi

The challenge to the 2020 Liability Notice was brought very late and without good reason; the 2020 LN remains valid until quashed by a court; the Defendant was entitled to issue a revised liability notice under regulation 65(5); defects in service and timing did not affect the amount of CIL payable; permission for judicial review is refused.

Court Disposition

Permission to apply for judicial review refused.