Service of a s.288 claim must be made on all defendants
Planning & environment, Public law & judicial review
The Administrative Court has today held that in order to bring a claim for statutory review pursuant to s.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990, it is necessary to effect timeous service on each defendant, not merely on the Secretary of State, and that the fact that any person who was required to be, but was not, served later indicates an intention not to contest the claim is immaterial to that question.
Planning permission dispute between Local Authority and Developers
The second and third defendants (“the developers”) applied to the claimant (“the council”) for planning permission. The council refused that application, and the developers appealed. The Inspector granted planning permission, and the council sought permission to proceed by way of statutory review. The claim was issued in time, and service on the first defendant (“the Secretary of State”) was effected in time. The council also purported to serve on the developers in time, by sending the requisite documents to the planning consultant who had assisted them in the course of their underlying appeal.
Service was, latterly, and outside the requisite time limit, effected on the developers, and the council sought an extension of time in respect of the same. The developers indicated by way of acknowledgement of service that they did not intend to contest the claim. The Secretary of State opposed the developers’ application for an extension of time, which was listed for hearing in order to determine the questions whether non-service on the developers affected the court’s jurisdiction to determine the claim as against the Secretary of State, and whether the fact that the developers did not intend to contest the claim affected the outcome.
Failure to serve all defendants in time
The court held as follows: Service was required to be effected on the Secretary of State and the developers within six weeks of the Inspector’s decision: §32. It was not effected on the developers in time, nor had the council taken all reasonable steps to serve in time or acted promptly in seeking an extension of time: §§34-35. It followed that the application for an extension of time fell dismissed. The court was therefore without jurisdiction to determine the claim against the developers and, given that there was a single claim, against the Secretary of State: §§37, 40. The fact that the developers had indicated that they did not intend to contest the claim was irrelevant to the jurisdictional question: §41.
Read the full judgement here.
