Moore- Williams, R (on the application of) v North Somerset Council

In judicial review proceedings, the court may quash an administrative decision where the defendant accepts, or does not contest, that the challenge is arguable and there is no sufficient material justifying a different conclusion. An interested party’s refusal to consent does not prevent quashing where that party advances no legal basis for maintaining the decision. Costs remain a matter for the court’s discretion. The court should consider whether the hearing and preparation were proportionate, particularly where the interested party’s conduct was understandable and a paper determination would have been sufficient.

The claimant challenged the defendant local planning authority’s retrospective planning permission for a dwelling constructed on land within the curtilage of a listed building and in the green belt. A deputy High Court judge had granted permission to apply for judicial review on grounds including irrationality and unlawful reliance on planning guidance.

The local authority subsequently agreed with the claimant that the planning permission should be quashed. The interested parties, who had purchased and occupied the dwelling, declined to consent to the proposed order but did not advance legal grounds supporting the validity of the permission. The issues were whether the permission should be quashed despite their refusal and whether they should bear the claimant’s costs.

1. Quashing order. The planning permission was quashed. The permission judge had considered the challenge arguable, and the local authority had conceded, or at least accepted, that the claim was arguable and had agreed to the decision being set aside. Although the court retained power to reach a different conclusion from that agreed by the parties, there was no material argument or evidence justifying such a course.
2. Position of the interested parties. The interested parties’ refusal to consent was not, in itself, unreasonable. They were understandably reluctant to concede that a planning decision affecting their home was wrong, particularly when they did not know what legal error the council was alleged to have made. Nevertheless, they advanced no legal basis on which the decision should remain in force. Their non-consent therefore did not prevent the court from making the quashing order.
3. Costs and proportionality. The court rejected any order requiring the interested parties to pay the claimant’s full costs, stated to be approximately £16,500. The matter could have been dealt with more economically on the papers, with written explanations and, if necessary, written representations from the interested parties. Some additional expense had resulted from their failure to engage fully, but the circumstances did not justify imposing the full costs of the hearing.
4. The interested parties were ordered to pay the claimant’s costs incurred between 25 February 2010 and the hearing, limited to £1,500 plus VAT. As between the claimant and the local authority, the order was made in the agreed terms.