Stern, R (on the application of) v Horsham District Council

Stern, R (on the application of) v Horsham District Council

Section 285 does not prevent a challenge by judicial review to the validity of enforcement notices served late under section 172(3). The words 'not served as required by section 172' in section 174(2)(e) should be interpreted narrowly to refer only to non-service, not late service, to avoid unfairness and ensure compliance with Article 6 ECHR. Since the council's late service contributed to the claimant's inability to appeal, the enforcement notices are invalid and must be quashed.

Parties
Claimant: Stern; Defendant: Horsham District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed; enforcement notices quashed; costs awarded to claimant
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice, Statutory Interpretation, Right of Appeal, Article 6 ECHR, Costs
Administrative Law Planning Law Human Rights Enforcement Notice Statutory Interpretation Right of Appeal Article 6 ECHR Costs

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stern

Claimant

Horsham District Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether enforcement notices served late under section 172(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are invalid and can be challenged by judicial review
  2. 2 Whether section 285 of the Act precludes such a challenge
  3. 3 Whether the council's refusal to withdraw and reissue the notices was unlawful

Ratio Decidendi

Section 285 does not prevent a challenge by judicial review to the validity of enforcement notices served late under section 172(3). The words 'not served as required by section 172' in section 174(2)(e) should be interpreted narrowly to refer only to non-service, not late service, to avoid unfairness and ensure compliance with Article 6 ECHR. Since the council's late service contributed to the claimant's inability to appeal, the enforcement notices are invalid and must be quashed.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; enforcement notices quashed; costs awarded to claimant

Orders

  • The two enforcement notices are quashed.
  • The defendant is to pay the claimant's costs, subject to agreed reductions for hearing attendance and travel time.