It may recalled that, regardless of the merits of a judicial review application, courts have a discretion, under section 31(6) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, to refuse leave (or any relief) where there has been undue delay in making the application and it is considered that the granting of the relief sought would be likely to cause substantial hardship to, or substantially prejudice the rights of, any person, or where it would be detrimental to good administration.
Assuming that such delay has occurred, can the applicant nevertheless contend that this (negative) discretion cannot be exercised where the complaint goes to a failure by a planning authority to comply with EC Directive 85/337 as implemented by the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988?
The answer, recently given by the Court of Appeal, is no: see R v North West Leicestershire District Council, ex parte Moses [2000] EGCS 55, where the quashing of a permission for an airport runway extension would have caused wasted expenditure to the tune of £79m. An appeal to the House of Lords is under consideration.
PP 2000/41
It may recalled that, regardless of the merits of a judicial review application, courts have a discretion, under section 31(6) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, to refuse leave (or any relief) where there has been undue delay in making the application and it is considered that the granting of the relief sought would be likely to cause substantial hardship to, or substantially prejudice the rights of, any person, or where it would be detrimental to good administration.
Assuming that such delay has occurred, can the applicant nevertheless contend that this (negative) discretion cannot be exercised where the complaint goes to a failure by a planning authority to comply with EC Directive 85/337 as implemented by the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988?
The answer, recently given by the Court of Appeal, is no: see R v North West Leicestershire District Council, ex parte Moses [2000] EGCS 55, where the quashing of a permission for an airport runway extension would have caused wasted expenditure to the tune of £79m. An appeal to the House of Lords is under consideration.
