Perry, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Hackney & Ors

Perry, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Hackney & Ors

Disclosure of confidential viability assessments was refused as the balancing exercise favored commercial confidentiality over public interest, and procedural fairness was not breached given the provision of redacted reports and independent consultant review. Permission to proceed in JR2 was granted as grounds were arguable, and both JR1 and JR2 were linked for composite hearing.

Parties
Claimant: Nicholas Perry; Defendant: London Borough of Hackney; Interested Party: Newmark Properties (SN) LLP; Interested Party: Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission and Case Management
Outcome
Permission to proceed granted in JR2; disclosure application refused; JR1 and JR2 linked for composite hearing; costs cap set.
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Affordable Housing, Confidentiality, Heritage Policy, Procedural Fairness
Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Disclosure Affordable Housing Confidentiality Heritage Policy Procedural Fairness

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

Parties

Nicholas Perry

Claimant

London Borough of Hackney

Defendant

Newmark Properties (SN) LLP

Interested Party

Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission and Case Management

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether confidential financial viability assessments should be disclosed in planning judicial review
  2. 2 Whether procedural unfairness occurred due to lack of disclosure
  3. 3 Interpretation and application of affordable housing policy

Ratio Decidendi

Disclosure of confidential viability assessments was refused as the balancing exercise favored commercial confidentiality over public interest, and procedural fairness was not breached given the provision of redacted reports and independent consultant review. Permission to proceed in JR2 was granted as grounds were arguable, and both JR1 and JR2 were linked for composite hearing.

Court Disposition

Permission to proceed granted in JR2; disclosure application refused; JR1 and JR2 linked for composite hearing; costs cap set.

Orders

  • Permission to proceed in CO/1377/2014 (JR2) granted on all grounds.
  • Disclosure of un-redacted viability assessments refused in both JR1 and JR2.