AG v Benest [2002] JRC 118 (11 June 2002)

AG v Benest [2002] JRC 118 (11 June 2002)

The Court found Mr Stein did not state a permit was not required, and the nature and scale of the development was not adequately communicated by Mr Benest nor sufficiently investigated by Mr Stein.

Citation
[2002] JRC 118
Parties
Respondent: Mr Stein; Applicant: Mr Benest
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
11 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Planning Dispute / Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Development Permission, Curtilage, Site Meeting, Mechanical Diggers
Planning Law Development Permission Curtilage Site Meeting Mechanical Diggers

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Stein

Respondent

Mr Benest

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Planning Dispute / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Stein stated that a permit was not required for works within the curtilage
  2. 2 Whether horse trails were discussed at the site meeting
  3. 3 Whether Mr Benest stated horses would form trails themselves

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found Mr Stein did not state a permit was not required, and the nature and scale of the development was not adequately communicated by Mr Benest nor sufficiently investigated by Mr Stein.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed