Planning and Environment v Lesquende [2003] JCA 130 (18 July 2003)

Planning and Environment v Lesquende [2003] JCA 130 (18 July 2003)

The Board's finding on the 5% discount for uncertainty in the no scheme world was a question of fact, not law, reached on the basis of the evidence before it. There was no error of law or breach of natural justice. The Royal Court was correct to refuse to order the Board to state a case on Issue 2, and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2003] JCA 130
Parties
Representor: Planning and Environment Committee of the States of Jersey; First Respondent: Lionel Read, Q.C.; Second Respondent: D. H. Le Vesconte; Third Respondent: R. V. Perchard; Fourth Respondent: Lesquende, Limited
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
18 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Renewed Application to the Full Court of Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on a standard basis.
Legal Topics
Compulsory Purchase, Valuation of Land, Case Stated Procedure, Jurisdiction, Interlocutory Appeals
Administrative Law Property Law Arbitration Compulsory Purchase Valuation of Land Case Stated Procedure Jurisdiction Interlocutory Appeals

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

Parties

Planning and Environment Committee of the States of Jersey

Representor

Lionel Read, Q.C.

First Respondent

D. H. Le Vesconte

Second Respondent

R. V. Perchard

Third Respondent

Lesquende, Limited

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Renewed Application to the Full Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under Article 12 of the Compulsory Purchase of Land (Procedure) (Jersey) Law 1961 and the Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law
  2. 2 Whether the Royal Court was correct in refusing to order the Board of Arbitrators to state a case on Issue 2 (the 5% discount for uncertainty in the no scheme world)
  3. 3 Whether the Board of Arbitrators' finding on the 5% discount was a question of law or fact

Ratio Decidendi

The Board's finding on the 5% discount for uncertainty in the no scheme world was a question of fact, not law, reached on the basis of the evidence before it. There was no error of law or breach of natural justice. The Royal Court was correct to refuse to order the Board to state a case on Issue 2, and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on a standard basis.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal refused.
  • Costs awarded against the applicant on a standard basis.