Challenges instituted under sections 287 or 288 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 must be made – that is, the proceedings must be issued and served upon the relevant parties – within the six-week time limit imposed by both sections.
However, in Corus UK Ltd v Erewash Borough Council [2005] EWHC 2821; [2005] PLSCS 228, the High Court exercised its discretion to allow an extension of time for service of a Part 8 claim form, issued under section 287. The claim form had been correctly issued, but, by mistake, the solicitors’ agent had served it two days after the time limit had expired.
The defendant argued that CPR 7.5 and 7.6 applied. On that basis, the grounds upon which the court could grant relief were limited, and did not apply. The court held, however, that rules 7.5 and 7.6 were not applicable to a Part 8 claim and exercised its discretion under CPR 3.1(2)(a) to allow the application.
In this case, the claimants had challenged the legality of the actions taken by the defendant local authority in their adoption of the local plan, and the defendants had conceded that the applicants had an arguable case. The considerations were therefore different from those affecting ordinary litigation, as they could affect planning policy for three years. On balance, it would have been unjust to refuse a challenge to a public authority, on the basis of an error of a few days, made by a third party.
Although this case might appear to offer some comfort to claimants who miss the six-week deadline and wish to apply for an extension of time, the decision is unlikely to have a wide application. The court was concerned with the wider implications of allowing an unlawful local plan policy to continue and its potential to affect future planning decisions. Moreover, service of the claim form had been a mere two days late and was clearly due to circumstances beyond the claimant’s control.
What the case does illustrate is that the six-week time period is not absolute and that there may be circumstances where the court is prepared to grant an extension. The wise practitioner will, however, ensure that challenges under sections 287 or 288 are instituted well within the requisite period.
Gill Castorina is an associate at Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker (Europe) LLP
Challenges instituted under sections 287 or 288 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 must be made – that is, the proceedings must be issued and served upon the relevant parties – within the six-week time limit imposed by both sections.
However, in Corus UK Ltd v Erewash Borough Council [2005] EWHC 2821; [2005] PLSCS 228, the High Court exercised its discretion to allow an extension of time for service of a Part 8 claim form, issued under section 287. The claim form had been correctly issued, but, by mistake, the solicitors’ agent had served it two days after the time limit had expired.
The defendant argued that CPR 7.5 and 7.6 applied. On that basis, the grounds upon which the court could grant relief were limited, and did not apply. The court held, however, that rules 7.5 and 7.6 were not applicable to a Part 8 claim and exercised its discretion under CPR 3.1(2)(a) to allow the application.
In this case, the claimants had challenged the legality of the actions taken by the defendant local authority in their adoption of the local plan, and the defendants had conceded that the applicants had an arguable case. The considerations were therefore different from those affecting ordinary litigation, as they could affect planning policy for three years. On balance, it would have been unjust to refuse a challenge to a public authority, on the basis of an error of a few days, made by a third party.
Although this case might appear to offer some comfort to claimants who miss the six-week deadline and wish to apply for an extension of time, the decision is unlikely to have a wide application. The court was concerned with the wider implications of allowing an unlawful local plan policy to continue and its potential to affect future planning decisions. Moreover, service of the claim form had been a mere two days late and was clearly due to circumstances beyond the claimant’s control.
What the case does illustrate is that the six-week time period is not absolute and that there may be circumstances where the court is prepared to grant an extension. The wise practitioner will, however, ensure that challenges under sections 287 or 288 are instituted well within the requisite period.
Gill Castorina is an associate at
