| Gerber v Wiltshire Council | |
|---|---|
 Gifford Hall, Broughton Gifford | |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Citation(s) | [2016] EWCA Civ 84 |
| Keywords | |
| energy | |
Gerber v Wiltshire Council [2016] EWCA Civ 84 is a UK enterprise law case relating to planning permission for electricity generation.
Daniel Gerber, the owner of a Grade II* listed [1] building called Gifford Hall at Broughton Gifford, Wiltshire, claimed that a nearby proposed solar farm should not have been given planning permission. The 22-hectare (54-acre) site (220,000 m2) was agricultural land. Gerber did not become aware of the plan till work started in March 2014; the work was completed in June 2014. Gerber applied for judicial review in October 2014. Dismantling and restoring the land would have required £1.5m in expense, losing £10.5m in total. Gerber claimed he had a legitimate expectation of notification from the council's own Statement of Community Involvement.
Dove J in the High Court quashed planning permission. [2] The owner was entitled to claim despite delay under CPR Pt 54 and the Senior Courts Act 1981 section 31(6).
Sales LJ held that the Statement of Community Involvement contained no promise, and generated no legitimate expectation, that a neighbour would be consulted. This error can affect exercise of discretion to extend time to bring a claim. It was inappropriate to extend time for bringing a legal challenge simply because an objector did not notice what was happening, or because of reliance on incorrect legal advice, Finn-Kelcey v Milton Keynes BC . [3] Even if time were extended, major financial detriment would have been suffered by the companies and less harm to the householder's amenity. The balance of factors affecting good administration, including the importance of renewable energy in the national interest, and the need for certainty and finality, meant the order quashing the planning permission had to be set aside.
Lord Dyson MR and Tomlinson LJ agreed.
Broughton Gifford is a village and civil parish about 1.5 miles (2.4 km) west of Melksham in Wiltshire, England. The parish includes the hamlets of Norrington Common and The Common.
Estoppel in English law is a doctrine that may be used in certain situations to prevent a person from relying upon certain rights, or upon a set of facts which is different from an earlier set of facts.
The doctrine of legitimate expectation was first developed in English law as a ground of judicial review in administrative law to protect a procedural or substantive interest when a public authority rescinds from a representation made to a person. It is based on the principles of natural justice and fairness, and seeks to prevent authorities from abusing power.
English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth, from membership in the European Union, continuing membership in Unidroit, and to a lesser extent the United States. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. A contract is a voluntary obligation, contrasting to the duty to not violate others rights in tort or unjust enrichment. English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court, so long as they comply with statutory and human rights.
Sir Robert Raphael Hayim Jacob, PC, known as Robin Jacob, is a former judge in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales.
United Kingdom administrative law is part of UK constitutional law that is designed through judicial review to hold executive power and public bodies accountable under the law. A person can apply to the High Court to challenge a public body's decision if they have a "sufficient interest", within three months of the grounds of the cause of action becoming known. By contrast, claims against public bodies in tort or contract are usually limited by the Limitation Act 1980 to a period of 6 years.
Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd[1989] EWCA Civ 5 is a leading English contract law case. It decided that in varying a contract, a promise to perform a pre-existing contractual obligation will constitute good consideration so long as a benefit is conferred upon the 'promiseor'. This was a departure from the previously established principle that promises to perform pre-existing contractual obligations could not be good consideration.
Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd[2008] UKHL 55 is a House of Lords case in English land law and relates to proprietary estoppel in the multi-property developer context. The court of final appeal awarded the project manager £150,000 on a quantum meruit basis for unjust enrichment because Yeoman's Row had received the benefit of his services without paying for that. The court refused to find or acknowledge a binding contract, prior arrangement with a third party or promise, overturning a £2m award on the basis of a possible lien arising from a promise over the property. The court found a non-binding agreement in principle, entirely subject to the owner's final say to take into account for example their view of the market; this was the basis on the facts on which the parties were proceeding.
The doctrine of legitimate expectation in Singapore protects both procedural and substantive rights. In administrative law, a legitimate expectation generally arises when there has been a representation of a certain outcome by the public authorities to an individual. To derogate from the representation may amount to an abuse of power or unfairness. The doctrine of legitimate expectation as a ground to quash decisions of public authorities has been firmly established by the English courts. Thus, where a public authority has made a representation to an individual who would be affected by a decision by the authority, the individual has a legitimate expectation to have his or her views heard before the decision is taken. Alternatively, an individual may also have a legitimate expectation to a substantive right. The recognition of substantive legitimate expectations is somewhat controversial as it requires a balancing of the requirements of fairness against the reasons for any change in the authority's policy. This suggests the adoption of a free-standing proportionality approach, which has been said not to apply in administrative law.
Wheeler v JJ Saunders Ltd [1994] EWCA Civ 32 is an English Court of Appeal case on nuisance which amended the precedent set by Gillingham Borough Council v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co Ltd. Wheeler was a veterinary surgeon who owned Kingdown Farm House; the wider farm was owned by J.J. Saunders Ltd, who used it for raising pigs. After Saunders gained planning permission for a pair of pig houses, Wheeler brought an action in nuisance, alleging that the smell of the pigs interfered with his use and enjoyment of the land. When the case went to the Court of Appeal, Saunders argued that the granting of planning permission for the pig houses had changed the nature of the area, as in Gillingham, making the nuisance permissible. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, holding that a pair of pig houses was not a sufficient development to change the nature of an area; the centre of the Gillingham case had been a commercial dock, which was a sufficient development.
Ladd v Marshall [1954] EWCA Civ 1 is an English Court of Appeal judgment, which established the criteria for the Court to accept fresh evidence in a case on which a judgement has already been delivered.
Illegality in English law is a potential ground in English contract law, tort, trusts or UK company law for a court to refuse to enforce an obligation. The illegality of a transaction, either because of public policy under the common law, or because of legislation, potentially means no action directly concerning the deal will be heard by the courts. The doctrine is reminiscent of the Latin phrase "Ex turpi causa non oritur actio", meaning "no cause of action arises from a wrong". The primary problem arising when courts refuse to enforce an agreement is the extent to which an innocent party may recover any property already conveyed through the transaction. Hence, illegality raises important questions for English unjust enrichment law.
Administrative law in Singapore is a branch of public law that is concerned with the control of governmental powers as exercised through its various administrative agencies. Administrative law requires administrators – ministers, civil servants and public authorities – to act fairly, reasonably and in accordance with the law. Singapore administrative law is largely based on English administrative law, which the nation inherited at independence in 1965.
Illegality is one of the three broad headings of judicial review of administrative action in Singapore, the others being irrationality and procedural impropriety. To avoid acting illegally, an administrative body or public authority must correctly understand the law regulating its power to act and to make decisions, and give effect to it.
R. v. North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan is a seminal case decided by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in 1999 which clarified the court's role in relation to cases which involve substantive legitimate expectations. The Court held that when reviewing a decision of a public authority which is contrary to a prior assurance or representation by the authority, its role is not always limited to assessing if the decision is Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational. In some situations, it is entitled to determine whether it is fair to compel the authority to fulfil its representation, or whether there is a sufficient overriding public interest which justifies allowing the authority to depart from the promise made.
The British Post Office scandal is a miscarriage of justice involving the wrongful civil and criminal prosecutions of an unknown or unpublished number of sub-postmasters (SPMs) for theft, false accounting and/or fraud. The cases constitute the most widespread miscarriage of justice in British legal history, spanning a period of over twenty years; it remains unresolved.
Penalties in English law are contractual terms which are not enforceable in the courts because of their penal character. Since at least 1720 it has been accepted as a matter of English contract law that if a provision in a contract constitutes a penalty, then that provision is unenforceable by the parties. However, the test for what constitutes a penalty has evolved over time. The Supreme Court most recently restated the law in relation to contractual penalties in the co-joined appeals of Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi, and ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.
Sir Konrad Hermann Theodor Schiemann, PC is a former German-British barrister and judge. He served on the Court of Appeal, and he was also a member of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Solar Century Holdings Ltd v SS for Energy and Climate Change [2016] EWCA Civ 117 is a UK enterprise law case, on electricity generation by solar power. It held that the Secretary of State could stop scheme supporting renewable electricity, without breaching legitimate expectations, misusing power, or unfairness in a judicial review claim.
Lungowe v. Vedanta Resources plc [2019] UKSC 20 is a UK company law and English tort law case, concerning business liability for human rights violations, environmental damage and the duty of care owed by a parent company.