Permission to amend after expiry of time limits – and an unfair hearing

18 July 2013 by

dunmow-map-alldev2Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government v San Vicente and Carden [2013] EWCA Civ 817, Court of Appeal, 18 June 2013read judgment

There is a curious if not bizarre set of anomalies about planning and environmental challenges. Where they involve an attack on a decision by the Secretary of State (typically in respect of a decision by a planning inspector after inquiry), the route is via section 288 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. There is a strict 6 week time limit, with no discretion to extend – but no need for permission to apply as in judicial review. But where there is a challenge to any other decision, the time limit (at the moment) is 3 months, with discretion to extend – but also a discretion to disallow if the application was not “prompt” even within the 3 months  (see my post on this last point) and the permission hurdle to clear.

Yet in each case the substantive grounds are effectively the same – but to what extent should procedures differ other than those required by the statutory underpinning?

The conundrum in this case was – what to do about a set of grounds (drafted by lawyers)  filed after the s.288 time limit, in substitution for grounds (by the clients doing it themselves) filed within the 6 weeks.

The Court of Appeal (approving the judge’s decision) held that there was no restriction on its discretion to allow such an amendment and no requirement that the new grounds bear any resemblance to those originally pleaded, after the end of the 6 weeks.

The Secretary of State (SoS) and the developer argued that the Court could not allow the substitution because the new grounds did not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as those originally pleaded, in reliance on rule 17.4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

The Court said that the correct approach is that it has a broad discretion to allow a substitution after the end of the 6 weeks under rule 17.1(2)(b) of CPR. There should not be different standards between section 288 challenges and planning judicial reviews and, if anything, the existence of a strict limitation period (i.e. one without a discretion unlike in j.r.) weighed in favour of allowing amendments in proper cases. It rejected the case that the time period was a limitation period falling within CPR 17.4.

It was severely troubled by the consequences of the SoS’s argument. So Beatson LJ at [46]

To allow an amendment to an in-time public law challenge only if the application to amend is made outside the requisite statutory period, here six weeks, where the amended grounds rely on the same or substantially the same facts as the original grounds would be inflexible. It could inhibit the ability of the court to vindicate the principle of legality or to consider the real issues of public interest and policy or the most serious ground for impugning the decision in the way that Lord Steyn stated a public law court should in Burkett…. Take the example of an in-time section 288 challenge to an Inspector’s decision on a number of technical planning grounds. After the expiry of the six week period, while the case is awaiting hearing in the Administrative Court, information may come to light which suggests that the Inspector took a bribe from the developer or was motivated by an improper purpose which is unconnected to the factual basis of the original grounds. There would, if Mr Kimblin’s submissions are correct, be no way that these questions could be determined by the Court.

The substantive hearing

This took place on 1 July 2013, and the Claimants won – judgment extempore, and case summary behind a Lawtel paywall. The developer’s appeal before the inspector had been conducted as an informal hearing – despite the fact that it concerned up to 100 houses – see the bottom right of my pic for the locality and various moves afoot. No local objectors were present. The inspector requested a copy of the public notification of the hearing and a letter was produced – unhelpfully it did not include information of the time or date of the hearing. On day 2, the inspector discovered the error. He adjourned the hearing and organised a further hearing, also conducted by him. The resident objectors attended. Not all the information heard at the first hearing was ventilated at the second hearing, including an important map showing alternative areas of development. The objectors also stated that the second hearing was rushed as it had run for half the time of the first hearing. The inspector recommended the grant of planning permission, and this was a challenge to that grant.

2 objectors submitted that the second hearing was not a fresh hearing and therefore the decision reached was prejudicial. The SoS contended that the decision would not have been different if the objectors had attended the first hearing.

Collins J said that there was no doubt that there was the appearance of unfairness and some material which showed that the decision was unfair. Although it was not a court hearing, justice had to be seen to be done. The objectors were statutorily entitled to attend the hearing. Even at an informal hearing it was incumbent on the inspector to ensure fairness for all who were entitled to attend the hearing. However, it was not enough to show that there had been unfairness; it had to be shown there was a prejudicial decision. On traditional grounds, both on judicial review and under section 288, there had to be a reasonable possibility that if the matter was heard again there could have been a different result. If it was clear that the decision would have been the same even if the correct procedure had been followed it would be inappropriate to quash the order. If a fresh hearing was held it was apparent that a different decision could be reached. The inspector had placed weight on evidence from the first hearing which was not dealt with at the second hearing.

So the decision was quashed, and the hearing will have to proceed once more.

Comment

The outcome amply justifies the impact on certainty which any amendment outside the 6 week period might bring. A strict interpretation of the amendment rule would have meant that an unfair procedure would have escaped challenge. All the more unfair this would have been given that the objectors were litigants in person when they started the court proceedings. And I dare say we are going to be seeing a lot more of these problems as more and more litigants in person struggle with the complexity of court proceedings – an unseen cost of legal aid cutbacks. The executive cannot have it all ways – something usually gives.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

2 comments


  1. At a time when the cry of all government departments is ‘more transparency’; there has never been a time of greater governmental cloak and dagger secrecy than at the present. Indeed, so much so that the left not only doesn’t know what the right side is doing, neither knows of the other’s existence.

  2. sandra san vicente says:

    Lack of transparency in the planning process is a real barrier to localism. There is often a lack of Effective communications essential for transparency. Therefore I am unaware of whats happening in my area, unable to participate and then unable to challenge because of the six week ruling and fearful of the costs. Aggressive speculators have meeting behind closed doors, make decisions that are not explained and future generations are lumbered with. It was only because I found through a planning consultant an excellent solicitor and barrister who were prepared to take a big risk that the subject of this email was given airing. It must be happening up and down this democractic country and planning and development, which is notoriously open to abuse, must be more transparent to give the little people chance to have their say before everything is a done deal.

    It may be a modern day dilemma but I do consider this to be a breach of my human rights.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: