Long, R (on the application of) v Optimisation Developments Ltd
The Welsh Ministers lawfully exercised their discretion under section 58(2)(d) of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 to repeal section 28 of the Abergavenny Improvement Act 1854. The provision was obsolete, unnecessary, and substantially superseded by the Food Act 1984. There was no misdirection of law, nor was the decision irrational or unreasonable. The Ministers were not required to consider the merits of redevelopment or the Council's future exercise of powers, only the legal effect of repeal.
- Parties
- Claimant: The Queen on the application of Long; Defendant: The Welsh Ministers; First Interested Party: Monmouthshire County Council; Second Interested Party: Optimisation Developments Ltd
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 08 November 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Statutory Interpretation, Repeal of Local Acts, Ministerial Discretion
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
The Queen on the application of Long
Claimant
The Welsh Ministers
Defendant
Monmouthshire County Council
First Interested Party
Optimisation Developments Ltd
Second Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Welsh Ministers lawfully exercised their power under section 58(2)(d) of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 to repeal section 28 of the Abergavenny Improvement Act 1854
- 2 Whether the Minister failed to take into account relevant considerations or took into account irrelevant considerations in making the repeal order
Ratio Decidendi
The Welsh Ministers lawfully exercised their discretion under section 58(2)(d) of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 to repeal section 28 of the Abergavenny Improvement Act 1854. The provision was obsolete, unnecessary, and substantially superseded by the Food Act 1984. There was no misdirection of law, nor was the decision irrational or unreasonable. The Ministers were not required to consider the merits of redevelopment or the Council's future exercise of powers, only the legal effect of repeal.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment