Piffs Elm Ltd, R (on the application of) v Commission for Local Administration in England & Anor [2023] EWCA Civ 486 (10 May 2023)

Piffs Elm Ltd, R (on the application of) v Commission for Local Administration in England & Anor [2023] EWCA Civ 486 (10 May 2023)

The Ombudsman had no power to withdraw decision 1 under the statutory scheme; decision 2 was unlawful. Decision 1 was unlawful as it was based on a misapprehension of the Council’s discretion to refund the fee and the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Decision 3 was lawful as the Ombudsman properly exercised his discretion to limit the investigation and found no maladministration, given the existence of respectable legal arguments on both sides regarding the Council’s power to refund the fee.

Citation
[2023] EWCA Civ 486
Parties
Appellant: Piffs Elm Limited; First Respondent: Commission for Local Administration in England; Second Respondent: Tewkesbury Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (administrative Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Ombudsman Powers, Functus Officio, Judicial Review, Planning Application Fees, Maladministration, Withdrawal of Administrative Decisions
Administrative Law Local Government Law Planning Law Ombudsman Powers Functus Officio Judicial Review Planning Application Fees Maladministration +1 more

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

Parties

Piffs Elm Limited

Appellant

Commission for Local Administration in England

First Respondent

Tewkesbury Borough Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (administrative Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Local Government Ombudsman had power to withdraw a final report (decision 1) and issue a new report (decision 3)
  2. 2 Whether decision 1 was unlawful
  3. 3 Whether decision 3 was lawful

Ratio Decidendi

The Ombudsman had no power to withdraw decision 1 under the statutory scheme; decision 2 was unlawful. Decision 1 was unlawful as it was based on a misapprehension of the Council’s discretion to refund the fee and the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Decision 3 was lawful as the Ombudsman properly exercised his discretion to limit the investigation and found no maladministration, given the existence of respectable legal arguments on both sides regarding the Council’s power to refund the fee.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Piffs Elm's appeal dismissed
  • Decision 1 declared unlawful