Cash v Wokingham Borough Council

Cash v Wokingham Borough Council

The Part 8 claim is an abuse of process and should have been brought by judicial review, which is now out of time. The enforcement notices are not nullities merely because compliance may require third party consent under the Habitats Regulations. Section 179(3) provides a defence if consent cannot be obtained. There is no objective evidence that compliance would adversely affect the TBH SPA. Article 8 rights do not outweigh the legitimate aim of planning control in this context.

Parties
Claimant: Mr Felix Cash; Defendant: Wokingham Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil (planning/administrative) / Judgment on Part 8 Claim and Costs Application
Outcome
Claim dismissed; permission to appeal refused; costs awarded to Defendant
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notices, Judicial Review, Habitats Regulations, Costs, Abuse of Process
Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Enforcement Notices Judicial Review Habitats Regulations Costs Abuse of Process

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Felix Cash

Claimant

Wokingham Borough Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (planning/administrative) / Judgment on Part 8 Claim and Costs Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether enforcement notices are nullities due to third party consent requirements under Habitats Regulations
  2. 2 Whether Part 8 claim is an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether permission for judicial review should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The Part 8 claim is an abuse of process and should have been brought by judicial review, which is now out of time. The enforcement notices are not nullities merely because compliance may require third party consent under the Habitats Regulations. Section 179(3) provides a defence if consent cannot be obtained. There is no objective evidence that compliance would adversely affect the TBH SPA. Article 8 rights do not outweigh the legitimate aim of planning control in this context.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; permission to appeal refused; costs awarded to Defendant

Orders

  • Claimant to pay Defendant's costs of £18,013.20
  • Costs awarded on indemnity basis