Planning Min. v Herold [2014] 1 JLR 160 (23 January 2014)
- Citation
- [2014] 1 JLR 160
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Appeal / Judgment
More details
- Posture
- Appeal / Judgment
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that there is no discretion to extend the 14-day statutory time limit for serving notice of third party appeal under the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002, art. 114(7), unless the appeal involves the determination of a civil right for the purposes of ECHR art. 6. In such cases, the court may extend the time limit only if the very essence of the right of access to courts would otherwise be impaired, and only in exceptional circumstances where the appellant has acted promptly.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed
02
Material facts
Parties
Planning Minister
ApplicantHerold
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Appeal / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the court has discretion to extend the 14-day time limit for serving notice of third party appeal under Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002, art. 114(7)
- 02
Whether Royal Court Rules 2004, r.1/5 or inherent jurisdiction allows extension
- 03
Whether ECHR art. 6 requires extension if civil rights are involved
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that the court has no discretion to extend the statutory 14-day time limit for serving notice of third party appeal under the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002, art. 114(7), either under the Royal Court Rules 2004, r.1/5 or under its inherent jurisdiction.
- Respondent
- The respondent contended that the time limit could be extended, particularly where the appeal involves the determination of a civil right under ECHR art. 6, and that the court should have discretion to prevent impairment of the right of access to courts.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002, art. 114(7); ECHR art. 6
No discretion to extend statutory time limit for appeal unless civil rights under ECHR art. 6 are engaged.
- 02
ECHR art. 6; case law interpreting access to justice
Court may extend time limit only if the very essence of the right of access to courts would otherwise be impaired, and only in exceptional circumstances where the appellant acts timeously.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that there is no discretion to extend the 14-day statutory time limit for serving notice of third party appeal under the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002, art. 114(7), unless the appeal involves the determination of a civil right for the purposes of ECHR art. 6. In such cases, the court may extend the time limit only if the very essence of the right of access to courts would otherwise be impaired, and only in exceptional circumstances where the appellant has acted promptly.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted that the exception for extension of time is narrow and requires both the involvement of a civil right and prompt action by the appellant.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed
Source and reliance status
Official court record
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court record
Judgment
[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [
DONATE ] Jersey Law Reports You are here:
BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Law Reports >> Planning Min. v Herold [2014] 1 JLR 160 (23 January 2014) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2014/JLR141160.html Cite as: [2014] 1 JLR 160 [ New search ] [ Help ] Planning Min. v Herold 2014 (1) JLR 160 (23 January 2014) Planning Law-appeals-time for appeal-extension-no discretion (under Royal Court Rules 2004, r.1/5 or inherent jurisdiction) to extend 14-day limit under Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002, art. 114(7) for serving notice of third party appeal unless involves determination of civil right (for purposes of ECHR, art. 6)-if so, court may extend time limit if very essence of right of access to courts otherwise impaired-exceptional and appellant must act timeously The document you wish to view is available to registered users or can be purchased as a PDF. To purchase this document in PDF format or alternatively to Register to purchase membership go to the Jersey Law website via this link: 2014 (1) JLR 160 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2014/JLR141160.html
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.