R Margate Town Centre Regeneration Company Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Collins |
| Judgment Date | 20 December 2012 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2012] EWHC J1220-2 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 20 December 2012 |
| Docket Number | CO/11203/2012 |
[2012] EWHC J1220-2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Collins
CO/11203/2012
Miss Sarah Sackman (instructed by Fladgate) appeared on behalf of the Claimants
Mr Martin Edwards (instructed by Trowers & Hamlins) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
MR EDWARDS: I appear on behalf of the second defendant. My learned friend Miss Sackman appears on behalf of the claimants. There is no appearance by the Treasury Solicitor ——-
No. I have seen the letter. They are saving costs, sensibly, which is hardly what you two have been doing.
MR EDWARDS: We have in fact asked for this application to be dealt with on the papers. It is at the request of the claimants that the matter should be here.
This obviously has to be heard sooner rather than later.
MR EDWARDS: Indeed.
Have you put in any evidence yet?
MR EDWARDS: Our evidence, as far as we are concerned, has already been put in. When I spoke to Mr Maurici, who is instructed on behalf of the Treasury Solicitor at the moment, he did not believe that he was going to put in any further evidence.
I can understand. It is all covered by the material before the inspector.
MR EDWARDS: It is, yes. As far as we are concerned, we have put in all the evidence that we feel should be put in.
You have done that.
MR EDWARDS: We have done it already.
For some reason someone thought I should be burdened with all this which was quite unnecessary. I am glad to say I did not read it. Quite why anyone thought it was necessary to produce all that material, I do not understand.
MR EDWARDS: We have always taken the view that the application for expedition could be dealt with on the papers, and asked for it to be dealt with on the papers.
I do not understand why there was any objection to it. It is quite unnecessary. Obviously it is desirable that this case is heard quickly. It is desirable that any case is heard quickly, but there are perfectly good reasons. Obviously the claimants must have an opportunity to deal with the evidence. When was it that you served all your evidence?
MR EDWARDS: The first witness statement was served on 16 November. A second witness statement from Miss Holme went in in relation to the witness statement that had been served by the claimants.
They have all your evidence in opposition to their claim.
MR EDWARDS: Indeed.
The Treasury Solicitor who is not here ——-
MR EDWARDS: Miss Stephens from the Treasury Solicitor's Office is present but Mr Maurici is not representing them today.
They should be in a position then to know whether they are going to put in any evidence.
MR EDWARDS: She does not anticipate at the moment that they are in a position to indicate whether they are ——-
Why not?
MR EDWARDS: I think Mr Maurici, when I spoke to him, had only received the papers in the last two days.
I am not worried about that because they obviously just make that decision before the beginning of the next term. There is an attack on the inspector but it is an attack not on the way he conducted things or anything like that but an attack on his findings said to be essentially perverse or not to have taken account of the material that was before him.
MR EDWARDS: Indeed.
So it is really a question of going to that material and seeing whether the points made are borne out.
MR EDWARDS: Indeed.
I would be very surprised if it was thought that there was a need to put in any extra evidence from the inspector's side, as it were. Obviously they have to have an opportunity of taking advice and seeing that. One of the obvious matters for me to direct or to deal with is a timetable.
MR EDWARDS: Indeed. I think on that it is probably wise for me to pass over to Miss Sackman on behalf of the claimants.
There has been a disgraceful waste of costs on this, Miss Sackman.
MISS SACKMAN: The claimant's concern was that the application as originally made for expedition was for this to be heard before Christmas.
That was totally unrealistic.
MISS SACKMAN: I make clear from my client's point of view, we were opposed to that. We always made clear that we were not opposed to expedition in principle, and indeed had a date ——-
What I do not understand is why all this was not sorted out before Mrs Justice Nicola Davies. That was the time for the timetable. I do not understand why she put it over.
MISS SACKMAN: My clients would not have been opposed to a date in 2013 and would have been able to work up to that date. Our concern was we might have been prejudiced had a listing been made prior to the end of this term.
That was never a realistic prospect.
MISS SACKMAN: That is what the second defendant was seeking which is why we were concerned.
With respect, that was an absurd application.
MR EDWARDS: With respect, the application went in very promptly within four weeks of the claim being served. Unfortunately, the application then got lost within the labyrinthine structure of this court. It was allocated to one case officer and then ——-
All right, blame the court.
MR EDWARDS: I do not wish to blame the court. I think no one comes out of this with completely clean hands. Then it was allocated —eventually after quite a lot of effort on the part of my instructing solicitors who attended court almost daily trying to find out what was going on —to Mrs Justice Nicola Davies who looked at it on the papers and directed that it should be heard today.
It was not a hearing?
MR EDWARDS: It was not a hearing, no.
Then I do understand. It is a pity because all that was needed was a sensible timetable. Have you applied your minds now to a sensible timetable?
MR EDWARDS: We had not originally. We have already swapped dates amongst ourselves. If I can do what Mr Glover for the claimant ——-
That is not an unreasonable request.
MISS SACKMAN: Mr Glover's availability is rather good next term. I am sure we could find a date to accommodate him. The only issue [is] I spoke to counsel for the Secretary of State and I have brought his dates along. His availability is somewhat more limited.
He is not, with respect, so essential.
MISS SACKMAN: Indeed. I feel confident that between Mr Edwards' and Mr Glover's schedule we should be able to accommodate a two-day hearing which is the current timetable.
So far as evidence is concerned, it seems to me, first, I gather you have had for a month the evidence from the council.
MISS SACKMAN: That is correct.
Are you going to put in any further evidence?
MISS SACKMAN: No, unless we receive additional evidence which is unlikely from the Secretary of State; we do not anticipate.
What I am minded to direct is that any evidence from the Secretary of State must be served by not later than 11 January which is the first day next term. If the decision is not to serve any evidence, please give notification as soon as possible so you will have by the first day of next term matters all in order for the purpose of the hearing.
MISS SACKMAN: I am grateful. The next thing is whether at that stage it would be necessary for us, depending on what the Secretary of States say, to put in a reply or at least have the opportunity to do so before bundles are exchanged.
56.1 Yes, well, I am envisaging that this ideally should be heard some time in February and certainly not later than the end of next term. That is what I had in mind. I very much doubt if there will be anything. Obviously you have to have the opportunity if there is further evidence of dealing with it if you need to although, as you say, I very much doubt it. There might be a need to. Fourteen days?
MISS SACKMAN: For exchanging skeleton arguments?
No, for dealing with anything.
MISS SACKMAN: Yes. I think that would be absolutely fine.
That takes us towards the end of January. What dates, if any, have you thought in terms of?
MR EDWARDS: My circumstances are that I have difficulty in the last week of February and I have difficulty in the second week of March, but everything else can be moved.
What about Mr Glover?
MISS SACKMAN: Mr Glover has a clear run throughout February. The first week of March is also fine. The second week of March ——-
What I suggest you do this morning is to go to the office and say that I have indicated that this must be heard in February and see whether you can get a date, say, in the middle of February which will accommodate you because it will be before the last week. Do you know Mr Maurici's dates?
MISS SACKMAN: I have not.
If you can accommodate him.
MISS SACKMAN: We will...
To continue reading
Request your trial