Jennifer Dawes, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Transport & Anor

Jennifer Dawes, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Transport & Anor

Neither the 2010 Rules nor common law procedural fairness required disclosure of the confidential interview transcripts underlying the Azimuth report. Rule 19(3)(b) applies to reconsideration after a quashed decision, but on the facts, the IBA report was not a reason for the Secretary of State's disagreement with the Examining Authority. The Secretary of State was not misadvised regarding the relevance of future airport capacity. The appeal is dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Jennifer Dawes; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Transport; Second Respondent: Riveroak Strategic Partners Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Development Consent Orders, Statutory Interpretation, Infrastructure Planning, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Planning Law Public Law Procedural Fairness Development Consent Orders Statutory Interpretation Infrastructure Planning Judicial Review

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jennifer Dawes

Appellant

Secretary of State for Transport

First Respondent

Riveroak Strategic Partners Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether procedural fairness required disclosure of confidential interview transcripts underlying the Azimuth report.
  2. 2 Whether rule 19(3)(b) of the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010 applies to reconsideration after a quashed decision.
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State was required to give parties an opportunity to comment on the IBA report.

Ratio Decidendi

Neither the 2010 Rules nor common law procedural fairness required disclosure of the confidential interview transcripts underlying the Azimuth report. Rule 19(3)(b) applies to reconsideration after a quashed decision, but on the facts, the IBA report was not a reason for the Secretary of State's disagreement with the Examining Authority. The Secretary of State was not misadvised regarding the relevance of future airport capacity. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment upheld; no relief granted to the appellant.