Forbes v Wokingham Borough Council [2018] EWHC 2530 (Admin) (04 October 2018)

Forbes v Wokingham Borough Council [2018] EWHC 2530 (Admin) (04 October 2018)

The council lawfully followed its constitution and statutory requirements; the Inspector lawfully assessed the evidence and was entitled to conclude that the use was referable to a right of way and not sufficient for green registration; the decision gave adequate reasons; the claim is not an Aarhus claim and costs...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 2530 (Admin)
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 Registration, Village Green Applications, Judicial Review Procedure, Public Meetings and Decision Making, Costs Capping Orders
Administrative Law Local Government Law Property Law Commons Registration Village Green Applications Judicial Review Procedure Public Meetings and Decision Making Costs Capping Orders

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 4 Authorities cited 12 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 for the purposes of section 15(3) Commons Act 2006
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector wrongly excluded certain activities as lawful sports and pastimes

Ratio Decidendi

The council lawfully followed its constitution and statutory requirements; the Inspector lawfully assessed the evidence and was entitled to conclude that the use was referable to a right of way and not sufficient for green registration; the decision gave adequate reasons; the claim is not an Aarhus claim and costs capping does not apply.

Court Disposition

Permission refused

Orders

  • Claimant to pay defendant's costs of acknowledgement of service (£3,722)
  • Claimant to pay interested party's costs of acknowledgement of service (£5,736.88)