Resources

David Thomas KC has successfully argued before the Privy Council that the decision of the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago in EMBD v Junior Sammy Contractors should be upheld.  

An application for statutory review of planning decision failed because the claimant failed to put the relevant material before the planning inspector when making his decision. There was a strong public interest in the finality of planning appeals and the claimant could not seek to rely on new materials after the decision.Facts The claimant applied for statutory review. The impugned action was the first defendant’s decision to allow the second and third defendants’ (residential developers) appeals against the refusal of planning of permission for two residential developments within the metropolitan green belt. The local authority had refused permission because these developments did not amount to the special circumstances required to allow developments within the green belt.When the developers appealed against this decision, the planning inspector concluded that overall, the harm was clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the developments. He recommended that both appeals be allowed, and planning permission granted. A second review (the Arup review) commissioned by the local authority had been published…

This judgment raised two interesting issues of principle (1) was an adjudicator’s decision as to the liability to pay his fees final or could it be reviewed/reversed by the Court if it found, after trial, that the adjudicator’s substantive decision was wrong, and (2) was a contractual provision for a contractor to pay interest on late payments at 2% above base a substantial remedy for the purposes of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998.