Forbes v Wokingham Borough Council

Forbes v Wokingham Borough Council

The Council was not required by statute to hold the decision-making process in public; the Inspector lawfully distinguished between use referable to a right of way and use as lawful sports and pastimes, considered the evidence cumulatively, and gave sufficient reasons; the claim did not fall within the Aarhus Convention for costs capping; all grounds for judicial review were unarguable and permission was refused.

Parties
Claimant: Lynn Forbes; Defendant: Wokingham Borough Council; Interested Party: Monopro Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission to Apply for Judicial Review
Outcome
Permission refused
Legal Topics
Commons Act 2006, Town or Village Green Registration, Judicial Review Procedure, Local Government Act 1972, Costs Capping Orders, Aarhus Convention
Administrative Law Local Government Law Land Law Commons Act 2006 Town or Village Green Registration Judicial Review Procedure Local Government Act 1972 Costs Capping Orders +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lynn Forbes

Claimant

Wokingham Borough Council

Defendant

Monopro Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission to Apply for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council erred in not holding the entire decision-making process in public
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to consider activities cumulatively in assessing use as of right
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector wrongly excluded certain activities as lawful sports and pastimes

Ratio Decidendi

The Council was not required by statute to hold the decision-making process in public; the Inspector lawfully distinguished between use referable to a right of way and use as lawful sports and pastimes, considered the evidence cumulatively, and gave sufficient reasons; the claim did not fall within the Aarhus Convention for costs capping; all grounds for judicial review were unarguable and permission was refused.

Court Disposition

Permission refused

Orders

  • Claimant to pay Defendant's costs of the acknowledgement of service, summarily assessed at £3,722
  • Claimant to pay Interested Party's costs of the acknowledgement of service, summarily assessed at £5,736.88