Hobson -v- Minister for Planning and Environment [2012] JRC 214 (19 November 2012)

Hobson -v- Minister for Planning and Environment [2012] JRC 214 (19 November 2012)

The case should have been dealt with under the ordinary procedure due to its length and complexity. The Minister was responsible for persuading the Master to follow the wrong course, and it is fair for the appellants to have their taxed costs. There was no basis for indemnity costs as there was no finding of gross negligence or deliberate impropriety.

Citation
[2012] JRC 214
Parties
Advocate for Appellants: Advocate Santos-Costa; Respondent: Minister for Planning and Environment; Advocate for Applicants: Advocate Leeuwenburg; Advocate for Applicants: Advocate Kelleher
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
19 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Planning Appeal (modified Procedure) / Post Judgment Costs Application
Outcome
Minister ordered to pay appellants' taxed costs; no order as to costs between applicants and appellants; application for indemnity costs refused.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Modified Procedure, Exceptional Circumstances in Costs
Administrative Law Planning Law Costs Orders Modified Procedure Exceptional Circumstances in Costs

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Advocate Santos-Costa

Advocate for Appellants

Minister for Planning and Environment

Respondent

Advocate Leeuwenburg

Advocate for Applicants

Advocate Kelleher

Advocate for Applicants

Procedural Posture

Planning Appeal (modified Procedure) / Post Judgment Costs Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded against the Minister
  2. 2 Whether standard costs should be awarded against the applicants or appellants
  3. 3 Whether exceptional circumstances justified a departure from the usual costs rule under the modified procedure

Ratio Decidendi

The case should have been dealt with under the ordinary procedure due to its length and complexity. The Minister was responsible for persuading the Master to follow the wrong course, and it is fair for the appellants to have their taxed costs. There was no basis for indemnity costs as there was no finding of gross negligence or deliberate impropriety.

Court Disposition

Minister ordered to pay appellants' taxed costs; no order as to costs between applicants and appellants; application for indemnity costs refused.

Orders

  • Minister to pay taxed costs of appellants
  • No order as to costs between applicants and appellants