Caesar Invs. Ltd. v P.E.C. [2003] JLR 566 (15 October 2003)

Caesar Invs. Ltd. v P.E.C. [2003] JLR 566 (15 October 2003)

The court held that the lateness of the refusal notice does not, by itself, indicate that the reasons given are false, and that a decision should not be automatically quashed for deficiency of initial reason if the reason can be ascertained from other material or amplified by the Committee.

Citation
[2003] JLR 566
Parties
Applicant: Caesar Investments Ltd.; Respondent: P. E. C.
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
15 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Planning Law Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Refusal of Planning Permission, Reasons for Decision, Procedural Fairness
Planning Law Administrative Law Refusal of Planning Permission Reasons for Decision Procedural Fairness

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Caesar Investments Ltd.

Applicant

P. E. C.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Planning Law Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether lateness of issue of refusal notice indicates falsity of reasons
  2. 2 Whether deficiency of initial reason requires quashing of decision

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the lateness of the refusal notice does not, by itself, indicate that the reasons given are false, and that a decision should not be automatically quashed for deficiency of initial reason if the reason can be ascertained from other material or amplified by the Committee.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed