DF v Harrogate Borough Council
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Poynter |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] UKUT 288 (AAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Environment,Poynter,R |
| Date | 15 October 2020 |
| Published date | 01 December 2020 |
1
[2020] UKUT 288 (AAC)
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
Appeal No. MISC/1400/2019 (V)
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
On appeal from the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)
Between:
David Fielder
Appellant
-v-
Harrogate Borough Council
Respondent
Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Poynter
Hearing date:
6 May 2020
Decision date:
15 October 2020
Representation
Appellant:
Jonathan Wills of counsel instructed by Freeths LLP
Respondent
Ruth A. Stockley of counsel
instructed by Harrogate Borough Council Legal Services
DECISION
The appeal does not succeed.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal given on 29 April 2019 under reference CR/2010/
0006 did not involve the making of any material error on a point of law.
Therefore that decision continues to have effect and the appellant is not entitled to
compensation under regulation 14 of the Assets of Community Value (England)
Regulations 2012 in respect of the decision to include the former Henry Jenkins public
house, Main Street, Kirkby Malzeard, HG4 3RY in the list of assets of community value
maintained by the respondent under section 87 of the Localism Act 2011.
The respondent’s application for costs is refused.
David Fielder v Harrogate Borough Council
[2020] UKUT 288 (AAC)
2
REASONS
Introduction
1. This is an appeal against the above decision of the First-tier Tribunal, which
upheld the decision of the respondent council that the appellant is not entitled to
compensation for the loss he claims to have incurred as a result of the former Henry
Jenkins public house in Kirkby Malzeard being listed as an asset of community value. I
am told that it is the first time that the compensation provisions of the Assets of
Community Value (England) Regulations 2012 have been considered by the Upper
Tribunal.
2. The appeal was decided after a remote oral hearing conducted through Skype for
Business, with the representatives for both parties attending the hearing via Skype. I am
grateful for the flexibility with which counsel approached the hearing. It made it easier to
overcome the minor technical problems that were experienced. I would also like to
record my gratitude to the clerk at the hearing, without whom those problems would
have been significantly less minor.
3. The hearing and the form in which it was to take place had been notified in the
daily courts list along with information telling any member of the public or press how
they could observe the hearing at the time it took place through Skype for Business. No
member of the public or press sought to attend the hearing.
4. A recording of the hearing was made using the Skype for Business recording
facility and will be preserved for a reasonable time in case members of the public or the
press would wish to view it.
5. I heard oral submissions at the hearing just as I would have done had we all been
sitting in the tribunal room.
6. I am therefore satisfied that the hearing constituted a public hearing (with
members of the public and press able to attend and observe the hearing), that no party
had been prejudiced, and that the open justice principle had been secured.
Relevant Law
Localism Act 2011
7. Chapter 3 of Part 5 of the Localism Act 2011 (the Act) deals with assets of
community value (ACV). Section 87 requires each local authority to maintain a list of
To continue reading
Request your trial