Amalgamated Smart Metering Limited, R (on the application of) v Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

Amalgamated Smart Metering Limited, R (on the application of) v Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

The claimant failed to act with all possible celerity after becoming aware of the planning application; the council substantially fulfilled its statutory publicity obligations; the grounds for review were not so strong as to outweigh the prejudice and detriment to good administration caused by the delay; there was...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Amalgamated Smart Metering Limited; Defendant: Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council; Interested Party: Prospect Estates Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / Permission/extension of Time Application
Outcome
Claim dismissed; permission for judicial review refused; extension of time refused; Part 11 applications dismissed; late summary grounds of defence admitted with costs consequences.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Extension of Time, Planning Permission, Procedural Fairness, Publicity Requirements, Noise Impact Assessment
Administrative Law Planning Law Judicial Review Extension of Time Planning Permission Procedural Fairness Publicity Requirements Noise Impact Assessment

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amalgamated Smart Metering Limited

Claimant

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

Defendant

Prospect Estates Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / Permission/extension of Time Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should extend time for filing a judicial review claim form challenging a grant of planning permission
  2. 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the claim given the delay
  3. 3 Whether the publicity requirements for the planning application were fulfilled

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to act with all possible celerity after becoming aware of the planning application; the council substantially fulfilled its statutory publicity obligations; the grounds for review were not so strong as to outweigh the prejudice and detriment to good administration caused by the delay; there was no good reason to extend time for filing the claim form; accordingly, the application for extension of time and permission for judicial review were refused.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; permission for judicial review refused; extension of time refused; Part 11 applications dismissed; late summary grounds of defence admitted with costs consequences.

Orders

  • Part 11 applications by defendant and interested party dismissed
  • Applications to extend time for filing summary grounds of defence granted, with costs of preparation disallowed