GJM v Planning Min. [2008] JLR 54 (25 February 2008)

GJM v Planning Min. [2008] JLR 54 (25 February 2008)

It is not necessary for a false statement or representation to have been made knowingly or recklessly for a modification notice to be issued under art. 10(2)(b); the statutory language and policy emphasize public interest over the applicant's state of mind.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] JLR 54
Parties
Applicant: GJM; Respondent: Planning Minister
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
25 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Modification Notice, False Statement in Application
Planning Law Planning Permission Modification Notice False Statement in Application

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GJM

Applicant

Planning Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a modification notice under Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002, art. 10(2)(b) requires proof that a false statement was made knowingly or recklessly

Ratio Decidendi

It is not necessary for a false statement or representation to have been made knowingly or recklessly for a modification notice to be issued under art. 10(2)(b); the statutory language and policy emphasize public interest over the applicant's state of mind.

Court Disposition

application dismissed