John Mussington and another v Development Control Authority and others (Antigua and Barbuda)

John Mussington and another v Development Control Authority and others (Antigua and Barbuda)

Appellants demonstrated sufficient interest as local residents affected by the airport, with genuine concern for environmental impacts and breaches of statutory process. The Court of Appeal erred in applying a narrow test for standing; the correct approach is context-sensitive and includes public interest and...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: John Mussington; Appellant: Ms Frank; Respondent: Development Control Authority; Respondent: Statutory Airport Authority; Respondent: Attorney General (Government of Antigua and Barbuda)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From Court of Appeal, Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Standing in Judicial Review, Development Control, Environmental Impact Assessment, Public Participation, Duty of Candour
Administrative Law Environmental Law Public Law Standing in Judicial Review Development Control Environmental Impact Assessment Public Participation Duty of Candour

Source-derived case record

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Mussington

Appellant

Ms Frank

Appellant

Development Control Authority

Respondent

Statutory Airport Authority

Respondent

Attorney General (Government of Antigua and Barbuda)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From Court of Appeal, Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants have standing to challenge the grant of a development permit for an airport in Barbuda
  2. 2 Whether due process under the Physical Planning Act 2003 was followed
  3. 3 Whether failure to disclose EIAs breached duty of candour

Ratio Decidendi

Appellants demonstrated sufficient interest as local residents affected by the airport, with genuine concern for environmental impacts and breaches of statutory process. The Court of Appeal erred in applying a narrow test for standing; the correct approach is context-sensitive and includes public interest and environmental concerns.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appellants have standing to bring judicial review.
  • Matter remitted for determination on merits.