Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Halton Borough Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

13 February 2023
[2023] EWHC 293 (Admin)
High Court
A council tried to challenge costs after a planning project was cancelled. They missed the deadline to formally complain. The judge said they missed the deadline and should have used a different complaint method. The judge then let them switch to the correct method, even though they were late, because the underlying problem was the same.

Key Facts

  • •Halton Borough Council (Claimant) sought an extension of time to serve a claim form for statutory review under s.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) of costs decisions against them.
  • •The claim challenged costs awarded against the claimant following the withdrawal of a planning application during a planning inquiry.
  • •The claimant initially filed the claim under s.288 TCPA, missing the six-week service deadline by a day.
  • •The claimant also applied to amend the claim form to bring it as a judicial review, arguing that this would have avoided the time extension issue.
  • •The main legal issue was the appropriate test for extending time for service under s.288 TCPA: whether CPR 3.1(2)(a) or CPR 7.6 applied.

Legal Principles

The appropriate test for extending time to serve a claim form in a statutory review under s.288 TCPA.

CPR 3.1(2)(a), CPR 7.6, Corus UK Limited v Erewash BC [2006] EWCA Civ 1175, Good Law Project Ltd v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] EWCA Civ 355.

Principles for relief from sanctions, applying the Denton test.

CPR 3.9, Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906.

Interpretation of statutory provisions, particularly 'in connection with'.

Fylde Coast Farms Ltd v Fylde BC [2021] 1 WLR, Coventry and Solihull Waste Disposal Company Ltd v Russell [1999] UKHL 49.

Principles for amending statements of case in public law proceedings.

CPR 17, CPR 54A PD paragraph 11, San Vicente v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWCA Civ 817.

Outcomes

The claimant's application for an extension of time was denied.

The court applied the CPR 7.6 principles by analogy as per Good Law, finding the claimant's delay serious and without good reason.

The claimant's application to amend the claim form to a judicial review was granted.

The court held that s.288 TCPA did not apply to costs orders made when an application was withdrawn before a decision, thus the claim should have been judicial review. The amendment was allowed as it didn't change the substantive claim.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.