Benson v The Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor

Benson v The Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor

The appeal was dismissed because the Inspector’s findings on the lack of continuous four-year use were supported by the evidence and unaffected by the excluded material. No formal, properly supported application to admit the late evidence was made at the inquiry. The Inspector’s exercise of discretion and procedural management was lawful, and no error of law or procedural unfairness occurred.

Parties
Appellant: Juliette Benson; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government; Second Respondent: Hertsmere Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal Under Section 289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice Appeals, Admission of Late Evidence, Immunity From Enforcement, Procedural Fairness, Statutory Interpretation
Planning Law Administrative Law Enforcement Notice Appeals Admission of Late Evidence Immunity From Enforcement Procedural Fairness 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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Juliette Benson

Appellant

Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government

First Respondent

Hertsmere Borough Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal Under Section 289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law by refusing to admit late evidence (bank statements and a tenant letter) at the enforcement notice appeal inquiry
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to give adequate reasons for refusing to admit the late evidence
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector’s decision was vitiated by procedural unfairness or failure to consider material evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the Inspector’s findings on the lack of continuous four-year use were supported by the evidence and unaffected by the excluded material. No formal, properly supported application to admit the late evidence was made at the inquiry. The Inspector’s exercise of discretion and procedural management was lawful, and no error of law or procedural unfairness occurred.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.