Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> Ruette Pinel Farm -v- Minister for Planning [2012] JRC 008A (06 January 2012)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2012/2012_008A.html
Cite as: [2012] JRC 008A, [2012] JRC 8A
[New search] [Help]
|
Before : |
W. J. Bailhache, Q.C Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Clapham and Marett-Crosby. |
|
Between |
Ruette Pinel Farm Limited |
Appellant |
|
And |
Minister for Planning and Environment |
Respondent |
Advocate M. T. Jowitt for the Appellant.
H. Sharp, Esq., HM Solicitor General for the Respondent.
judgment
the deputy bailiff:
1. I am grateful to Counsel for their submissions. I am going to make an order for indemnity costs against the Minister.
2. I have been looking back in my notes of what took place on 30th November, and it is clear that the argument in Court at that time from the Minister was that the analysis of merits would not take very long, but one possible outcome would be that even if the procedural defects were established, and they were I think conceded, that it would be possible for the decision to stand because the Court could say this was a disgraceful process but the decision stands on the merits. And that indeed was the argument that was run at the time of the hearing, and has been rejected for the reasons which are set out in paragraph 73 of the judgment.
3. In the circumstances I think that costs ought to be awarded against the Minister for the entirety of the process, particularly taking into account the points I have put to the Solicitor General right at the outset.
4. As far as the indemnity (as against standard) costs are concerned, the Court has made serious criticism of the processes of the Minister and the Department in relation to the handling of this matter. In particular the Court accepts the submission made by the Appellant that it was faced with a decision, the reasons for which were simply unclear, and therefore it was inevitable that an appeal on the merits would be brought as well as the appeal on grounds of process.
5. Although the appellant has not been successful on the merits, it nonetheless seems to me, in the light of the very poor process in the Department and with the Minister in the earlier parts of the decision-taking process, that it is right that the Minister bears all the costs which are incurred and therefore indemnity costs are awarded as marking the Court's displeasure at that process. I reject the view that the Court marks its displeasure only in relation to the conduct of the litigation, certainly insofar as one is dealing with a public authority like the Minister.
Authorities