Thamesdown Borough Council, Re application for leave [1996] EWHC Admin 5 (21st February, 1996)

The Panel's decision to refuse adjournment was within its discretion, not wholly unreasonable or unlawful, and all relevant considerations were taken into account; there was no error of law or improper influence by the Secretary of State.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [1996] EWHC Admin 5
Parties: Applicant: Thamesdown Borough Council; Respondent: Plan Panel; Respondent: Wiltshire County Council
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Procedural Posture: Application for Leave for Judicial Review / Application for Leave
Outcome: Application for leave refused
Legal Topics: Judicial Review, Structure Plan, Local Government Reorganisation, Adjournment of Examination in Public, Costs in Judicial Review

Administrative Law Planning Law Judicial Review Structure Plan Local Government Reorganisation Adjournment of Examination in Public Costs in Judicial Review

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2

Parties

Thamesdown Borough Council

Applicant

Plan Panel

Respondent

Wiltshire County Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave for Judicial Review / Application for Leave

Legal Issues

1 Whether the Panel's refusal to adjourn the examination in public was wholly unreasonable or unlawful
2 Whether the Panel failed to take into account relevant considerations regarding joint arrangements post-1 April
3 Whether the Panel improperly followed the Secretary of State's view

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application for leave refused

Orders

Leave for judicial review refused
Applicant to pay costs of the Plan Panel

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.