SO (R on the application of) v THANET DISTRICT COUNCIL

SO (R on the application of) v THANET DISTRICT COUNCIL

The Council lawfully withdrew temporary consent, served notices sufficiently, conducted adequate welfare and equality assessments, and exercised local discretion; no arguable grounds for judicial review.

Parties
Claimant: SO; Defendant: Thanet District Council; Interested Party: Kent County Council; Interested Party: The Crown Estate; Interested Party: The Justices at Maidstone Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Rolled Up Hearing, Permission and Substantive Determination
Outcome
Permission to seek judicial review refused; claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Public Sector Equality Duty, Traveller Rights, Service of Legal Documents, Local Authority Powers
Administrative Law Human Rights Equality Law Judicial Review Public Sector Equality Duty Traveller Rights Service of Legal Documents Local Authority Powers

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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SO

Claimant

Thanet District Council

Defendant

Kent County Council

Interested Party

The Crown Estate

Interested Party

The Justices at Maidstone Magistrates' Court

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Rolled Up Hearing, Permission and Substantive Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Lawfulness of s77 directions under Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
  2. 2 Adequacy of service of notices under s79
  3. 3 Compliance with welfare assessment and equality duties

Ratio Decidendi

The Council lawfully withdrew temporary consent, served notices sufficiently, conducted adequate welfare and equality assessments, and exercised local discretion; no arguable grounds for judicial review.

Court Disposition

Permission to seek judicial review refused; claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Written submissions on costs to be made within seven days of judgment hand-down.