Ebanks v Central Planning Auth

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: (Hercules, Ag. C.J.)
• Judgment Date: 06 August 1982
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
• Date: 06 August 1982

Grand Court

(Hercules, Ag. C.J.)

EBANKS

and

CENTRAL PLANNING AUTHORITY

R.D. Alberga, Q.C. and C.C. Adams for the appellant;

J. Martin, Senior Crown Counsel, for the respondent.

Legislation construed:

Development and Planning Law (Revised) (Law 28 of 1971, revised 1977), s.14(1):

‘Subject to the provisions of this section, if it appears to the Authority that it is expedient, having regard to the development plan and to any other material considerations, that any permission to develop land on an application made in that behalf under this Part should be revoked or modified, it may by order revoke or modify the permission to such an extent as appears to it to be expedient as aforesaid.’

Development and Planning Law-planning permission-permission in principle-revocation-Central Planning Authority to exercise power under Development and Planning Law (Revised), s.14(1) according to rules of natural justice-applicant to be given opportunity to be heard and informed of reasons for revocation-Authority to act independently and decision null and void if influenced by external body

The appellant appealed against a decision of the Central Planning Authority revoking the outline planning permission which had previously been granted him in relation to a proposed project.

The appellant had applied to the Central Planning Authority for permission to erect a marine bunker station on a specified site. The Authority considered the application but deferred it for consideration by the Executive Council as it involved proposals in respect of which the Authority had no jurisdiction. These proposals were, however, subsequently withdrawn by the appellant, thus allowing the Authority to approve the application in principle subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions. Although these conditions were satisfied, the Authority, acting on instructions from the Executive Council, then revoked the outline permission. The appellant”s appeal to the Appeals Tribunal was dismissed and he then appealed further challenging the revocation of the outline permission.

He submitted that (a) the decision was illegal and improper as the Authority had failed to observe the principles of natural justice in that it had neither allowed him an opportunity of putting forward a case in sup-

port of the initial approval of his application, nor had it made him aware of the reasons for the revocation; and (b) the external influence exerted by the Executive Council was both improper and in breach of the statutory mandate given the Authority to discharge its functions independently.

The respondent conceded that the decision had to be one for the Authority itself but pointed out that it had the power under the Development and Planning Law (Revised), s.14(1) to revoke its own decision, which was all it had done in this case.

Held, quashing the revocation order:

(1) The Central Planning Authority”s revocation of the outline planning permission previously granted to the appellant was illegal and improper because (a) although it admittedly had the power under the Development and Planning Law (Revised), s.14(1) to revoke its own decisions, it had failed to observe the principles of natural justice when exercising this power. It should have provided the appellant with an opportunity to put forward arguments and evidence in support of the outline permission previously granted and informed him of the reasons for the revocation. Its failure to do so rendered the decision a nullity and consequently its subsequent confirmation by the Appeals Tribunal could not stand (page 212, lines 1–8); and, moreover (b) it had allowed its decision to be influenced by an external body, namely the Executive Council, contrary to its statutory obligations to discharge its functions independently and without any abdication of its authority (page 210, line 41 – page 211, line 16).

(2) Since the decision to revoke could therefore not be sustained, the application would be remitted to the Central Planning Authority to be dealt with in accordance with the principles of natural justice (page 212, lines 22–27; page 213, lines 17–22).

40	HERCULES, Ag. C.J.: These proceedings stem from the revo-
cation by the Central Planning Authority of permission in prin-

ciple, or outline permission, granted to the appellant. A short his-

tory of the matter should suffice to throw some light on the case

as presented in this court.

The appellant, a Caymanian, is the owner of

...