R (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER,LORD JUSTICE TUCKEY |
| Judgment Date | 13 December 2000 |
| Neutral Citation | [2000] EWHC J1213-7 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2000] EWHC J1025-3 |
| Docket Number | Case Nos: 3062/2000, 3606/2000 3742/2000, 3904/2000,CO/0163/2000, CO/3062/2000 CO/3742/2000, CO/3904/2000 CO/0163/2000 CO/3062/2000 CO/4672/1999 CO/3904/2000 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 13 December 2000 |
[2000] EWHC J1025-3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand London
WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Scott Baker
CO/0163/2000, CO/3062/2000
CO/3606/2000, CO/4672/1999
CO/3742/2000, CO/3904/2000
CO/0163/2000
CO/3062/2000
CO/4672/1999
CO/3904/2000
APPEARANCES:
MR KEITH LINDBLOM QC and MR CRAIG HOWELL-WILLIAMS appeared on behalf of THE CLAIMANT MR JONATHAN KARAS
MR DAVID ELVIN QC, MR PHILIP SALES, MR TIMOTHY MOULD and MR JAMES MAURICI (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of THE DEFENDANT
THE CLAIMANT appeared in person
MR DAVID ELVIN QC, MR PHILIP SALES, MR TIMOTHY MOULD and MR JAMES MAURICI (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of THE DEFENDANT
MR STEPHEN HOCKMAN QC and MR KEVIN LEIGH appeared on behalf of THE CLAIMANT
MR DAVID ELVIN QC, MR PHILIP SALES, MR TIMOTHY MOULD and MR JAMES MAURICI (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of THE DEFENDANT
THE CLAIMANT appeared in person MR DAVID ELVIN QC, MR PHILIP SALES,
MR TIMOTHY MOULD and MR JAMES MAURICI (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of THE DEFENDANT
MR CHRISTOPHER BOYLE appeared on behalf of THE CLAIMANT
MR JOHN LITTON MR DAVID ELVIN QC, MR PHILIP SALES,
MR TIMOTHY MOULD and MR JAMES MAURICI (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of THE DEFENDANT
MR MARTIN KINGSTON QC and MR PETER GOATLEY on behalf of HUNTINGDONSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL
MR GARY JONES and MR DARREN ABRAHAMS on behalf of CAMBRIDGESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
MR GORDON POLLOCK QC appeared in person and on behalf of NENE VALLEY ASSOCIATION
MRDAVID BARNEY appeared on behalf of HUNTSNAP RESIDENTS
MISS ANNE WILLIAMS on behalf of CHILTERN DISTRICT COUNCIL
MR PALMER appeared in person and on behalf of SNELSMORE RESIDENTS
Wednesday 25 October 2000
Yes, Mr Elvin?
MR ELVIN: My Lord, if I might commence, I appear on behalf of the Secretary of State together with my learned friend Mr Sales, Mr Maurici and Mr Mould.
Yes, and Mr Litton?
MR ELVIN: Mr Litton and Mr Karas separately represent the Highways Agency both in Alconbury and in the Legal and General case.
I see, yes.
MR ELVIN: Would it help your Lordship just to go through the cast list?
Yes, it would. Just start again, would you?
MR ELVIN: My Lord, it is Elvin, Sales, Maurici and Mould for the Secretary of State. For the Highways Agency in Alconbury, Jonathan Karas. In the A34, the Legal and General case, it is John Litton. Alconbury are represented by my learned friends Mr Lindblom QC and Mr Howell-Williams. In that case Huntingdonshire District Council are represented by my learned friends Mr Kingston QC and Mr Goatley. Cambridgeshire County Council are represented by Mr Jones. And acting for once as litigant in person is my learned friend Mr Pollock, sitting in the front row.
Ah, he is here, is he?
MR ELVIN: It is an unusual position.
Yes, I presumed it was the Mr Pollock when I read the letter —
MR ELVIN: Indeed.
—although it did not specifically identify him.
MR ELVIN: In the Holdings and Barnes case the claimant is represented by my learned friends Mr Hockman QC and Mr Leigh —and I understand, when I have finished reading out this cast of thousands, Mr Hockman has a small matter to raise with your Lordship.
Yes, he is wanting to be elsewhere?
MR ELVIN: Indeed, my Lord. My Lord, in the Dyason case Mr Dyason appears in person. He is, your Lordship sees, third from the right in the front row.
Yes, Mr Dyason.
MR ELVIN: And Chiltern District Council is represented by my learned friend Miss Williams.
And you are for the Secretary of State?
MR ELVIN: My Lord, the Secretary of State —the four councils —are common to all the cases.
Yes, thank you.
MR ELVIN: In Premier Leisure my learned friend Mr Leigh is also acting for the claimant there. And in the Legal and General case, Legal and General are represented by my learned friend Mr Boyle. I am sorry, I have missed Mr Barney in Alconbury, who is acting for himself and for Huntsnap Residents.
Yes. There were a couple of letters to the court which I have not seen. I have seen Mr Pollock's letter, but Huntsnap's letter I have not yet found, and I think there was some other organisation.
MR ELVIN: Yes, Mr Pollock, I suspect, may also be representing his residents association as well as the Nene Valley.
Right.
My Lord, I also appear as a litigant in person. I am one of the Snelsmore objectors in the A34 inquiry. We have not been enjoyed as defendants —
Wait a minute. You are Mr?
My name is Palmer.
Thank you, and you are in the Legal and General case?
We are not actually in the case. We have been served with the proceedings, but we are not actually defendants.
Right. Yes.
MR ELVIN: My Lord, this may be Mr Bhamjee who is acting in person.
Yes, Mr Bhamjee?
MR BHAMJEE: I am Mr Bhamjee. I am acting in person.
Thank you very much.
MR ELVIN: My Lord, before I proceed further, might I leave Mr Hockman to say what he has to say?
Yes.
MR HOCKMAN: My Lord, as your Lordship knows, I appear together with my learned friend Mr Leigh behalf of Holdings and Barnes. My Lord, I am sorry to cause this difficulty at such an early stage and to ask to be interposed very briefly, but, as I think your Lordship is aware, I have to be elsewhere at eleven o'clock and I am extremely grateful to your Lordship and to all concerned for allowing me at least to make a few preliminary observations. My Lord, Mr Leigh of course will remain. He will be able to assist your Lordship later with regard to the substance of matters and in regard to the detail.
My Lord, it seems to me that all I can really do at this stage is perhaps to put down, if I may, one or two markers and perhaps to offer your Lordship what might be called an aperitif in advance of the main menu, which others no doubt will offer shortly.
My Lord, having looked at the various notes which have been provided, and which your Lordship has doubtless seen, it seems to me that the main headings at least are likely to be these. Firstly, whether the various matters before your Lordship today ought to be consolidated and heard together. I doubt whether that point will be controversial. It is certainly not controversial so far as we are concerned.
There seems to be some doubt about Mr Bhamjee's case Mr Dyason's case.
MR HOCKMAN: My Lord, I do not seek to address observations to your Lordship on those, of course, but that is certainly the first point. Although from the point of view of our clients an expeditious disposal and a disposal of their case is what they are most concerned about, realistically we see that insofar as there are common issues here, the court is going to want to keep them together.
Yes.
MR HOCKMAN: And we do not think that we can sensibly object to that course being followed. My Lord, the second heading, therefore, really is likely to be the question of how the consolidated proceedings are going to be managed. My Lord, we shall have, I anticipate, some observations to make about that. In the first place, if I can flag this up now, we shall be seeking to lodge an amendment to our grounds. That is available now. Mr Elvin has it. I understand that it will not be controversial. The aim of it, as your Lordship will see, is simply to ensure that on behalf of our clients we are in a position to cover the ground and to address the main headings of argument which are bound to arise in any event. I do not suppose that in a case of this kind anybody is going to take too many technical points, but what we have endeavoured to do is to ensure that the main threads of argument, which are bound to arise in the case are covered. My Lord, that is the purpose of it.
My Lord, an equally important —or perhaps a more important —point that is going to arise under the heading of "Management" is the question of timing. We know that everyone is going to be concerned about timing and there are obvious reasons for that, which I need not enlarge on now.
When you say "timing", do you mean having it heard soon or do you mean the date on which it can be heard?
MR HOCKMAN: I mean the status, my Lord, —the timetable would be a more accurate expression.
Yes.
MR HOCKMAN:; My Lord, can I simply flag up that we do have some concerns about that. We acknowledge the need...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown's (Chalmers) Application
... ... judicial review of a decision by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland refusing renewal of ... to the remarks of Lord Clyde in R (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the ... Office) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the ... 8 Regions [2002] 1 WLR ... ...
-
Clark v Kelly
... ... roles of the planning inspector, the Secretary of State and the courts applying judicial review ... was analysed by Lord Hoffmann in R (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the vironment, Transport and the Regions [2001] 2 WLR 1389 , 1420-1424, ... ...
-
R (Whitmey) v Commons Commissioners
...under section 13 by way of judicial review does not violate article 6 (see generally R (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2003] 2 AC 35 Mr Greatorex submits that, since the inquiry established by the authority is not established......
-
R (City of Westminster) v Mayor of London
... ... by DLA) for the Defendant and Transport for London (1st named Interested Party) ... Mr ... In Secretary of State for Education v. Tameside MBC [1977] ... Secretary of State for the Environment [2002] ECWA CA 735 (para 25, per Simon Brown ... by its absence from these developments. It made no reference to these matters in its ... He draws support from Bovis Homes Ltd v. New Forest District Council , 25 Janaury 2002, ... , of which the leading one is Alconbury Ltd v. Secretary of State for Transport and the ... State for Environment, Transport and the Regions [2002] EWCA Civ 735 which has played a ... ...