Young, Re Application for Judicial Review [2007] NIQB 29 (30 March 2007)

Young, Re Application for Judicial Review [2007] NIQB 29 (30 March 2007)

Commissioner Allen's dual role—having previously participated in rejecting the applicant's appeal and then preparing the report for the rehearing—created an appearance of bias sufficient to vitiate the impartiality of the tribunal under the Porter v Magill test and Article 6 ECHR. The decision of the Planning Appeals Commission must therefore be quashed.

Citation
[2007] NIQB 29
Parties
Applicant: William Young; Respondent: Planning Appeals Commission
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
30 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Appeals Commission Decision
Outcome
Application granted; decision of the Planning Appeals Commission quashed.
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Apparent Bias, Article 6 ECHR, Planning Permission, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Planning Law Human Rights Procedural Fairness Apparent Bias Article 6 ECHR Planning Permission Judicial Review

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Young

Applicant

Planning Appeals Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Appeals Commission Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the involvement of Commissioner Allen, who had previously participated in rejecting the applicant's appeal, gave rise to apparent bias and procedural unfairness under Article 6 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the Planning Appeals Commission failed to consult the applicant regarding the procedure for reconsideration of his appeal
  3. 3 Whether the Commission was entitled to rely on objections from the previous appeal in the reconsideration

Ratio Decidendi

Commissioner Allen's dual role—having previously participated in rejecting the applicant's appeal and then preparing the report for the rehearing—created an appearance of bias sufficient to vitiate the impartiality of the tribunal under the Porter v Magill test and Article 6 ECHR. The decision of the Planning Appeals Commission must therefore be quashed.

Court Disposition

Application granted; decision of the Planning Appeals Commission quashed.

Orders

  • The decision of the Planning Appeals Commission dated 10 July 2006 is quashed.
  • The applicant's appeal lodged on 14 March 2005 remains extant.