England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Hethel, R (on the application of) v South Norfolk Dc [2010] EWCA Civ 1033 (30 July 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/1033.html
Cite as: [2010] EWCA Civ 1033

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

		Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWCA Civ 1033
		Case No: C1/2009/2762

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
(MR JUSTICE CRANSTON)

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

30th July 2010

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY
LORD JUSTICE LLOYD
and
LORD JUSTICE SULLIVAN
____________________

	Queen On The Application Of Hethel	Appellant
	- And -
	South Norfolk Dc	Respondent

____________________

(DAR Transcript of
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________

Mr Philip Kovin QC and Ms Asitha Ranatunga (instructed by Messrs Sharpe Pritchard) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
Mr Gordon Nardell QC (instructed by Messrs Bond Pearce) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

Lord Justice Sullivan:

For the reasons set out in the approved judgement which I now hand down, the appeal is allowed. The planning permission for the three wind turbines is quashed. There are certain variations to the order of Cranston J which I need not refer to. So far as costs are concerned, the rival contentions are that the council should pay either 20%, or as much as 80%, of the claimant's costs in the High Court. So far as the costs of the appeal are concerned, there is no issue that the respondent is to pay the appellant's costs. So far as costs in the High Court are concerned, we have come to the conclusion that the fair order is that the respondent should pay two thirds of the appellant's costs of the High Court proceedings. They are to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.

So far as a payment on account is concerned, a payment on account of £30,000. The respondent's application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court is refused, as is the application for a stay.

Order: Appeal allowed.

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010