Coopers & Lybrand v Idc [1992] JLR 70 (26 February 1992)

Coopers & Lybrand v Idc [1992] JLR 70 (26 February 1992)

Development consent is the only binding permission under the Island Planning (Jersey) Law, 1964, but the Law is not an exhaustive guide to the practice of the Island Development Committee, which may grant intermediate permissions without formal application.

Citation
[1992] JLR 70
Parties
Applicant: Coopers & Lybrand; Respondent: Idc
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
26 February 1992
Procedural Posture
Planning Law / Judgment
Outcome
clarification of legal position
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Conditional Consent, Development Consent, Island Planning (jersey) Law 1964
Planning Law Planning Permission Conditional Consent Development Consent Island Planning (jersey) Law 1964

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

Coopers & Lybrand

Applicant

Idc

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Planning Law / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether conditional consent granted by the President of the Island Development Committee constitutes a binding development permission under the Island Planning (Jersey) Law, 1964
  2. 2 Whether the Law is an exhaustive guide to the practice of the Island Development Committee

Ratio Decidendi

Development consent is the only binding permission under the Island Planning (Jersey) Law, 1964, but the Law is not an exhaustive guide to the practice of the Island Development Committee, which may grant intermediate permissions without formal application.

Court Disposition

clarification of legal position