Case Law >> When timing still matters

19th June 2012

Related Topics

Related tags

  • Management ,
  • Property ,
  • Construction



Experts from Lexis PSL discuss the recent Berky judgement on the timing of making a judicial review claim and what this means for developers

In R (Berky) v Newport City Council [2012] EWCA Civ 378, the Court of Appeal held that a claim for judicial review was not brought “promptly”, even though it was within the three-month time limit for making a claim.

The claimant, a local resident, applied to challenge the granting of planning permission for the construction of a new Morrisons supermarket by way of judicial review.

The claim form was issued on the last day of the three-month period in which forms seeking such a review had to be filed, as specified by rule 54.5(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Also, no letter of complaint against the planning decision had preceded the claim form.

There was a delay in bringing proceedings, so that by the time the application to the High Court to bring a judicial review was heard the supermarket was already open.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the claimant’s appeal against the High Court’s refusal to apply for judicial review.

Although the judges dissented on the issue of timing, the majority held that the claimant’s application had not been brought promptly.

The judges said there had been no convincing explanation for the failure to commence proceedings, or even for not having sent a letter until the very end of the three-month period. They also noted that the claimant would have been aware of work commencing on the site.

The court distinguished the case from Uniplex v NHS Business Services Authority, [2010] 2 CMLR 1255.

In that case, the European Court of Justice held that the requirement to bring proceedings “promptly” was contrary to the EU legal principles of certainty and effectiveness, as it would render the limitation period discretionary.

The judges in Berky considered that the power to not allow a review arose whenever there was a failure to commence proceedings promptly. As a result, the review could be refused on the grounds of delay if the court thought that appropriate.

In light of this ruling, applicants for judicial review should be aware that they may be held to account for any delay in bringing a claim.

However, the judgment of Uniplex still stands. Therefore, developers are advised to adopt a cautious approach and continue to regard the full three months as the challenge period.


Subscribe to IEMA's newsletters to receive timely articles, expert opinions, event announcements, and much more, directly in your inbox.

Transform articles

New guidance maps out journey to digital environmental assessment

IEMA’s Impact Assessment Network is delighted to have published A Roadmap to Digital Environmental Assessment.

2nd April 2024

Read more

Lisa Pool on how IEMA is shaping a sustainable future with impact assessment

27th November 2023

Read more

IEMA responded in September to the UK government’s consultation on the details of the operational reforms it is looking to make to the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) consenting process as put forward in the NSIP reform action plan (February 2023).

24th November 2023

Read more

Members of IEMA’s Impact Assessment Network Steering Group have published the 17th edition of the Impact Assessment Outlook Journal, which provides a series of thought pieces on the policy and practice of habitats regulations assessment (HRA).

26th September 2023

Read more

In July, we published the long-awaited update and replacement of one of IEMA’s first published impact assessment guidance documents from 1993, Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic.

1st August 2023

Read more

Are we losing sight of its intended purpose and what does the future hold for EIA? Jo Beech, Tiziana Bartolini and Jessamy Funnell report.

15th June 2023

Read more

Luke Barrows and Alfie Byron-Grange look at the barriers to adoption of digital environmental impacts assessments

1st June 2023

Read more

Susan Evans and Helen North consider how Environmental Statements can be more accessible and understandable

1st June 2023

Read more

Media enquires

Looking for an expert to speak at an event or comment on an item in the news?

Find an expert

IEMA Cookie Notice

Clicking the ‘Accept all’ button means you are accepting analytics and third-party cookies. Our website uses necessary cookies which are required in order to make our website work. In addition to these, we use analytics and third-party cookies to optimise site functionality and give you the best possible experience. To control which cookies are set, click ‘Settings’. To learn more about cookies, how we use them on our website and how to change your cookie settings please view our cookie policy.

Manage cookie settings

Our use of cookies

You can learn more detailed information in our cookie policy.

Some cookies are essential, but non-essential cookies help us to improve the experience on our site by providing insights into how the site is being used. To maintain privacy management, this relies on cookie identifiers. Resetting or deleting your browser cookies will reset these preferences.

Essential cookies

These are cookies that are required for the operation of our website. They include, for example, cookies that enable you to log into secure areas of our website.

Analytics cookies

These cookies allow us to recognise and count the number of visitors to our website and to see how visitors move around our website when they are using it. This helps us to improve the way our website works.

Advertising cookies

These cookies allow us to tailor advertising to you based on your interests. If you do not accept these cookies, you will still see adverts, but these will be more generic.

Save and close