Ask a Law Question, Get an Answer ASAP!
Dear Sirs, Re: Judicial Review Proceedings I put N461 claim for JR in the Administrative Court on 20/01/2015. The Judge refused the Claim on the grounds being premature. Tower Hamlets proposed to build a community centre underneath our residential flats located at Orion House E1 5RX. The residents strongly object to that centre underneath their flats. The Council made a series of different decisions in one process in regard to the development and a final planning decision to proceed on 19/02/2015. The Council said that the Claim “is premature and irrelevant to the actions which the Council has taken so far.” Council relied on the House of Lords' decision in R. (on the application of Burkett) v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC (No.1)  UKHL 23,  1 W.L.R. 1593 . In Burkett, a planning claim, the court held that the time limit for bringing judicial review should run from the actual grant of planning permission, rather than the planning authority's earlier resolution which had indicated that it intended to grant planning permission. However, I relied on R (on the application of Maria XXXXXX XXXX) v Barnet London Borough Council & (1) Capita Plc (2) EC Harris LLP (3) Capita Symonds (Interested Parties)  EWHC 1067 (Admin) Lord Justice Underhill distinguished Burkett from Nash, on the basis that in Burkett the prior resolution had merely been a "preliminary or provisional foreshadowing of the later decision", whereas in Nash, "the earlier and later decisions are distinct, each addressing what are substantially different stages in a process". The result is that, if the earlier decision is in reality what is being objected to, then "the making of the second decision does not set time running afresh". I also relied on R(Unison) v NHS Wiltshire Primary Care Trust  EWHC 624 (Admin), the defendant primary care trust had made various decisions to proceed with an outsourcing project with an identified commercial partner. In similar fashion to the Nash case, these decisions were challenged more than three months after they had been taken, on the basis that the contract had not yet been concluded. The court held that time had started to run from the making of the decisions, and the fact that the final terms of the contract were still to be agreed did not reset the clock. In Nash the court viewed that the court in the Unison case "did not regard Burkett as laying down a universal rule that in the case of a staged decision-making process time for a challenge will always start to run afresh when the final decision in the process is made". In my case, Tower Hamlets made several distinct decisions such as making a plan, choosing the site, choosing architects, suppliers and contractors for the development. Therefore I thought NASH and UNISON are relevant and not Burkett but the judge went for Burkett and made the Claim premature. I have 7 days to go for oral hearing and I need your advice as to whether to proceed with oral hearing or discontinue. Thank you. Regards, AhmadXXX*****@******.*** ***********