Cortina Villas v Planning Appeals Trib

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: (Harre, C.J.)
• Judgment Date: 01 September 1998
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
• Date: 01 September 1998

Grand Court

(Harre, C.J.)

CORTINA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (trading as CORTINA VILLAS)

and

CHAIRMAN OF PLANNING APPEALS TRIBUNAL and EIGHT OTHERS

S.G. Hellman for the plaintiff;

J.S. Jackson for the second defendant;

P. Lamontagne, Q.C., for the third to ninth defendants.

The first defendant did not appear and was not represented.

Cases cited:

(1) Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service, [1985] A.C. 374; [1984] 3 All E.R. 935, dicta of Lord Diplock applied.

(2) Ostreicher v. Environment Secy., [1978] 1 W.L.R. 810; [1978] 3 All E.R. 82, distinguished.

(3) R. v. Home Secy., ex p. DoodyELR, [1994] 1 A.C. 531; sub nom. Doody v. Home Secy., [1993] 3 All E.R. 92, dicta of Lord Mustill applied.

(4) R. v. Panel on Take-overs & Mergers, ex p. Guinness PLC, [1990] Q.B. 146; [1989] 1 All E.R. 509, dicta of Lloyd, L.J. applied.

Legislation construed:

Development and Planning (Appeals) Rules 1985, r.3: The relevant terms of this rule are set out at page 252, lines 5–8.

r.7(1): The relevant terms of this sub-rule are set out at page 252, lines 8–11.

Development and Planning Law (1995 Revision) (Law 28 of 1971, revised 1995), s.41(2): The relevant terms of this sub-section are set out at page 252, lines 2–3.

Development and Planning Law-Planning Appeals Tribunal-procedure-adjournment-all parties to have opportunity to be heard on application to adjourn proceedings-quorum of three tribunal members required unless decision purely administrative, e.g. adjournment by consent, when Chairman may act alone

The plaintiff company applied for planning permission for a building development.

The plaintiff appealed against the Central Planning Authority”s refusal, and following a preliminary hearing, a provisional date was set for the hearing before the Planning Appeals Tribunal with the agreement of all parties. The objectors to the plaintiff”s application then requested an adjournment of the hearing on the ground that their counsel had a conflicting court engagement. The Chairman of the Tribunal was informed that counsel representing the Central Planning Authority did not object to the proposed adjournment, but that the plaintiff”s attorneys were taking their client”s instructions.

Before the plaintiff”s attorney could revert to the objectors” attorney, however, the Chairman wrote to both parties informing them that he had adjourned the hearing as requested.

The plaintiff sought judicial review of the Chairman”s decision to adjourn.

It submitted that (a) the Chairman”s decision was illegal, since under the Development and Planning Law (1995 Revision), s.41(2) three members of the Tribunal were required to make a quorum; (b) it was also procedurally unfair, since the Chairman had, without consulting it, vacated a trial date to which it had agreed and for which it had prepared; and (c) the decision was also Wednesbury unreasonable, since the objectors could be heard in person or through their counsel on another occasion, thereby avoiding the expense and inconvenience of further delay.

The objectors submitted in reply that (a) a quorum of three tribunal members was necessary only for substantive matters and not for administrative issues such as an adjournment; (b) since under the Development and Planning (Appeals) Rules 1985, rr. 3 and 7(1) they were entitled to be heard at the appeal either in person or by an attorney, the Chairman had acted fairly in ordering the adjournment to allow for their counsel to attend the hearing; and (c) in any event, the decision was not so unreasonable that no body, properly directed, could have reached it.

Held, quashing the Chairman”s decision:

(1) The requirements of fairness varied depending on the nature of the decision to be taken, but once the standard was established, the tribunal would not be permitted to fall short of it in any respect. The decision to adjourn the appeal was not, in the circumstances, irrational in the sense that a properly directed tribunal could not have arrived at it. However, notwithstanding that the objectors had a right to be heard at the appeal, the Chairman had acted improperly in ordering the adjournment without affording the plaintiff an opportunity to make representations on the subject (page 252, lines 33–36; page 254, lines 4–18; page 255, lines 2–7).

(2) Furthermore, the decision was illegal by reason of s.41(2) of the Development and Planning Law (1995 Revision), since the plaintiff, having reserved its right to object to an adjournment, was entitled to be heard by a quorum of three members of the tribunal. Had all parties agreed to the adjournment, the Chairman alone could have made the purely administrative order (page 252, lines 1–3; page 255, lines 9–15).

HARRE, C.J.: This is an application for judicial review of a decision
of the Chairman of the Planning Appeals Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’)
ordering an adjournment to a date to be fixed of the hearing of the
45	planning appeal styled Cortina Intl. Ltd. v. Central Planning Authority

relating to a proposed development at West Bay Beach North, Block 11C,
Parcel 181, which had been listed for hearing on May 12th and 13th, 1998.
On April 18th, 1997 the plaintiff filed an application for planning
permission to build 65 apartment units on the land at West Bay Beach
5	North, Block 11C, Parcel 181. The proposed development was known as
Cortina Villas. On May 21st, 1997 revised plans were submitted. The
application was considered at the meeting of the Central Planning
Authority on

...