Corus UK Ltd, R (on the application of) v Newport City Council

A court may find that a planning decision was unlawful and grant declaratory relief even where, in the exercise of discretion, it refuses to quash the resulting planning permission. The declaration should accurately reflect the grounds on which the decision-making process was unlawful and should not imply that the permission itself has been quashed. Where the claimant substantially succeeds but fails to obtain the principal remedy, costs remain a matter of broad judicial discretion. A proportionate costs order may reflect both the claimant’s success on the grounds and the defendant’s success in resisting quashing.

Corus UK Ltd challenged Newport City Council’s decision-making in relation to planning permission. The court had found that some grounds of challenge were established but had exercised its discretion not to quash the planning permission, substantially because of the particular position of the Henry family, who benefited from it. The parties then addressed the appropriate form of declaration and costs.

1. Declaratory relief. The court had found that the Council’s decision-making process was unlawful, although it had refused to quash the planning permission. A declaration could therefore identify the unlawful decision-making without suggesting that the planning permission itself was unlawful or had been quashed.
2. The appropriate declaration should encapsulate the court’s conclusions on the successful grounds of challenge, as set out in paragraphs 100 to 103 of the judgment. The form of declaration was to be agreed by the parties, subject to the court’s final approval.
3. The claim was not academic. Although the court had refused the quashing order, it had found grounds of unlawfulness and there was a public interest in those issues being litigated and made clear.
4. Costs. The claimant was the substantially successful party. The defendant’s success in resisting a quashing order was materially qualified because the exercise of discretion was influenced principally by the position of the Henry family, rather than by the conduct of either party. Since not all grounds succeeded and the principal remedy was refused, a broad-brush order for 50 per cent of the claimant’s costs was reasonable and proportionate.

First-instance judicial review proceedings in the Administrative Court. The judgment refers to an earlier order of His Honour Judge Vosper, but no separate lower-court judgment citation is stated.