ETM Contractors Limited, R (on the application of) v Bristol City Council

16 September 2024

[2024] EWHC 2263 (Admin)

High Court

A company tried to challenge a planning permission but missed the deadline and made mistakes filing and serving the legal paperwork. The court said they were too late and didn't follow the rules properly, so they lost the case.

Key Facts

•ETM Contractors Limited (Claimant) sought judicial review of Bristol City Council's (Defendant) planning permission granted to Esteban Investments Limited (Interested Party).
•Claim form filed late (October 10th, 2023, instead of October 3rd, 2023), and served late on both Defendant and Interested Party.
•Claimant applied for extensions of time for filing and serving the claim form, and for validation of alternative service.
•Claimant's solicitor, Ms. Sutherland, used hyperlinks instead of attachments when attempting to file and serve documents electronically.
•The court's computer system prevented opening hyperlinked documents.
•The claim form served on the Interested Party lacked the statement of facts and grounds.
•The planning permission granted involved a development adjacent to the Claimant's waste facility, raising noise concerns.

Legal Principles

Time limits for filing judicial review claims related to planning decisions are strict (6 weeks after grounds arise).

CPR 54.5(5)

Claim forms must contain essential documents, including statements of facts and grounds.

Practice Direction 54A, paragraphs 4.1, 4.2

Electronic filing and service must adhere to specific rules and guidance (Practice Directions 5B and 6A).

Practice Direction 5B, Practice Direction 6A

Court has discretion to extend time for compliance with rules (CPR 3.1(2)(a)), but considers factors like delay, prejudice, and good administration.

CPR 3.1(2)(a), Senior Courts Act 1981, sections 31(6) and (7)

Principles for extending time in planning judicial review cases involve balancing developer's and public interests, promptness, and strength of the case.

R (Thornton Hall Hotel Ltd) v Wirral MBC [2019] PTSR 1794

Court can validate alternative service (CPR 6.15(2)) if there's good reason; considers reasonable steps, defendant's awareness, and prejudice.

CPR 6.15(2), R (Good Law Project) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] EWCA Civ 355

Outcomes

Claimant's application for extension of time to file the claim form dismissed.

Solicitor's failure to follow procedural rules, lack of reasonable steps, and insufficient justification for the delay outweighed the potential prejudice to the claimant.

Claimant's application for validation of alternative service dismissed.

Service was incomplete (lacking statement of facts and grounds); even if complete, claimant didn't take reasonable steps, defendant (Esteban) lacked awareness, and prejudice outweighed the merits.

Claim dismissed.

Consequence of the dismissal of both applications for extension of time and validation of service.

ETM Contractors Limited, R (on the application of) v Bristol City Council

Key Facts

Legal Principles

Outcomes

Similar Cases

Suzanne Merrills, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

Farnham Town Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing & Communities & Ors

Home Farm Land Limited v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor

Elizabeth Soilleux v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities

Clarion Housing Association Limited v Crest Nicholson Operations Limited