GEORGE BRAITHWAITE & ANOR. (R on the application of) v EAST SUFFOLK COUNCIL

GEORGE BRAITHWAITE & ANOR. (R on the application of) v EAST SUFFOLK COUNCIL

The challenge to the 2020 Liability Notice was made very late and without good reasons for the delay; the 2020 LN remains valid until quashed by a competent court; regulation 65(5) permits revised notices only if an earlier valid notice exists; defects in service and timing did not affect the amount of CIL payable; permission to apply for judicial review is refused.

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
application for permission to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Community Infrastructure Levy, Liability Notice, Demand Notice, Delay, Statutory Interpretation
Administrative Law Planning Law Community Infrastructure Levy Liability Notice Demand Notice Delay Statutory Interpretation

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 5 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 Defendant lawfully served the 2021 Liability Notice 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 absence of a valid liability notice rendered the 2021 Demand Notice invalid

Ratio Decidendi

The challenge to the 2020 Liability Notice was made very late and without good reasons for the delay; the 2020 LN remains valid until quashed by a competent court; regulation 65(5) permits revised notices only if an earlier valid notice exists; defects in service and timing did not affect the amount of CIL payable; permission to apply for judicial review is refused.

Court Disposition

application for permission to apply for judicial review refused