London Borough of Hackney v JCDecaux (UK) Limited [2022] EWHC 2621 (Admin)
Hackney advertisement deemed consent explains the ten-year Class 13 deemed-consent route for advertisements and what “displayed continually” actually requires.
The High Court held that a contractual right or continuing intention to advertise is not enough. The advertisement itself has to be displayed with sufficient continuity.
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.
- Neutral citation
- [2022] EWHC 2621 (Admin)
- Court
- High Court, King's Bench Division, Administrative Court
- Judgment date
- 19th October 2022
- Judge
- Mrs Justice Lang DBE
- Case number
- CO/408/2022
Need help with a planning application?
Planning Geek isn’t just a reference site - preparing and submitting planning applications is what we do. If you’d like a hand with an application, an appeal or any other planning matter, we’d be glad to help.
What Hackney decided
The dispute concerned an advertising panel where JCDecaux relied on Class 13 deemed consent based on a period of more than ten years.
There had been gaps when no advertisement was physically displayed. The lower court treated the continuing commercial arrangements as sufficient. Hackney appealed.
Mrs Justice Lang allowed the appeal and remitted the removals-notice case for redetermination.
Actual display is required
Class 13 protects an advertisement which has been displayed continually for the required period. It is not enough that the advertising operator retained the site, had a contract in place or intended to display advertising again.
The physical display is the activity protected by the regulations.
Continuity is a question of fact and degree
The court did not create an absolute rule that every momentary gap destroys deemed consent. The question is whether an interruption is materially inconsistent with continual display.
Relevant considerations can include the duration and reason for a gap and whether the authority could realistically have taken enforcement action during it.
Historic display outside the relevant ten-year period is only useful to the extent that it helps prove what happened during the statutory period.
The burden remains on the advertiser
The party relying on deemed consent has to prove the facts which bring the advertisement within the class.
This makes good records important where an advertising site has changed posters, been temporarily blank or undergone maintenance.
Planning Geek’s guides to advertisement enforcement and advertisement consent appeals explain the wider regime.
Read the full JCDecaux judgment
The full High Court judgment is held in the Planning Geek case law library. Gold Members can open the protected PDF below.
Hackney Advertisement Case Law Page Updated: 10th September 2026