AG v KPG and Whitehorse [2003] JRC 139 (01 August 2003)

AG v KPG and Whitehorse [2003] JRC 139 (01 August 2003)

The defendants, as experienced developers, failed to obtain required permissions and continued work after explicit warnings, justifying substantial fines to reflect the seriousness and deterrent purpose.

Citation
[2003] JRC 139
Parties
Defendant: KPG; Defendant: Whitehorse; Owner/controller: Mr Alexander Burnett
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
01 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
Outcome
conviction and fines imposed
Legal Topics
Development Without Permission, Failure to Obtain Permit, Breach of Planning Regulations, Developer Responsibility
Planning Law Public Health Law Criminal Law Development Without Permission Failure to Obtain Permit Breach of Planning Regulations Developer Responsibility

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KPG

Defendant

Whitehorse

Defendant

Mr Alexander Burnett

Owner/controller

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants undertook development without required planning permission and permits
  2. 2 Whether the defendants' actions after warnings aggravated the offences
  3. 3 Appropriate level of fines for the infractions

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants, as experienced developers, failed to obtain required permissions and continued work after explicit warnings, justifying substantial fines to reflect the seriousness and deterrent purpose.

Court Disposition

conviction and fines imposed

Orders

  • Fine of £4,000 on each of two charges against KPG
  • Fine of £4,000 on the charge against Whitehorse