Perry, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Hackney & Ors [2014] EWHC 1721 (Admin) (23 May 2014)

Perry, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Hackney & Ors [2014] EWHC 1721 (Admin) (23 May 2014)

Disclosure of the un-redacted viability assessments and related documents is not necessary in this case, as the public interest in maintaining commercial confidentiality outweighs the interest in disclosure, and the planning authority's approach to balancing these interests was lawful. Permission to proceed in JR2...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 1721 (Admin)
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 Directions
Outcome
Permission to proceed in JR2 granted; application for disclosure refused; JR1 and JR2 to be linked; cost cap set; case management directions issued.
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Documents, Affordable Housing Policy, Commercial Confidentiality, Procedural Fairness, Heritage Policy, Environmental Information Regulations, Judicial Review Procedure
Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Disclosure of Documents Affordable Housing Policy Commercial Confidentiality Procedural Fairness Heritage Policy +2 more

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 3 Authorities cited 7 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 Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether disclosure of un-redacted viability assessments and related documents is necessary and justified in planning judicial review
  2. 2 Whether permission should be granted for judicial review in CO/1377/2014 (JR2)
  3. 3 Whether JR2 should be linked with JR1

Ratio Decidendi

Disclosure of the un-redacted viability assessments and related documents is not necessary in this case, as the public interest in maintaining commercial confidentiality outweighs the interest in disclosure, and the planning authority's approach to balancing these interests was lawful. Permission to proceed in JR2 is granted as the grounds are arguable, and JR2 should be linked with JR1 for case management.

Court Disposition

Permission to proceed in JR2 granted; application for disclosure refused; JR1 and JR2 to be linked; cost cap set; case management directions issued.

Orders

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