Gilman, R (on the application of) v Rutland County Council & District Council

Gilman, R (on the application of) v Rutland County Council & District Council

The Committee was misled by the officer's report, which wrongly suggested the trees would be felled unless the order was made. The decision cannot stand as it was not made on a fair and accurate basis. The confirmation of the Tree Preservation Order must be quashed.

Parties
Claimant: Frank Egerton Gilman; Defendant: Rutland County Council District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decision quashed; costs to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.
Legal Topics
Tree Preservation Orders, Local Authority Decision Making, Judicial Review, Human Rights
Administrative Law Planning Law Tree Preservation Orders Local Authority Decision Making Judicial Review Human Rights

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

Parties

Frank Egerton Gilman

Claimant

Rutland County Council District Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council's decision to confirm a Tree Preservation Order was lawful
  2. 2 Whether the Committee was misled by the officer's report
  3. 3 Whether human rights considerations were properly addressed

Ratio Decidendi

The Committee was misled by the officer's report, which wrongly suggested the trees would be felled unless the order was made. The decision cannot stand as it was not made on a fair and accurate basis. The confirmation of the Tree Preservation Order must be quashed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decision quashed; costs to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.

Orders

  • Confirmation of the Tree Preservation Order is quashed.
  • Costs to the claimant, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.