Eco-Energy (GB) Ltd v First Secretary of State & Ors [2004] EWCA Civ 1566
The point in plain English: A section 288 challenge cannot be rescued after the statutory deadline by trying to substitute a different claimant who had the relevant land interest. Standing and the strict challenge period both matter.
What the Court of Appeal decided
The planning application and appeal had been pursued by an Eco-Energy consortium. A separate company later attempted the High Court challenge, relying on an intended transfer of an option over the land. The transfer had not been legally effective when the proceedings were begun.
The Court of Appeal explained that a “person aggrieved” under section 288 may include the planning appellant, a person who took a sufficiently active role in the planning process, or someone with a relevant interest in the land. But the company before the court did not establish the necessary standing in time.
The court also rejected an attempt to substitute the option holder after the statutory challenge period had expired. The strict statutory timetable serves finality and certainty in planning decisions.
Why Eco-Energy matters
The case is a useful warning that planning challenges are not ordinary civil claims where parties can necessarily be corrected later. The proper claimant and statutory route need to be identified at the outset.
See Planning Geek’s guide to judicial review and statutory planning challenges.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.