Eatessami v Department of Transport

(DAR Transcript of WordWave International Limited A Merrill Communications Company 165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424 Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

The Claimant appeared in person. Mr Cannock (instructed by the Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Defendant. ____________________

This clearly enables those who do not regularly read the London Gazette, or indeed the local newspaper, which in this case was published, I understand it, once a week, to appreciate the extent of the order that is sought and to raise their objections, particularly if there was a significant public, or as here maybe private, right-of-way which was affected. Such a notice was published on 5 th April 2012.

In fact " this Part " of course is the relevant part of the Act, because section 287 goes on to provide an entitlement to question the validity of development plans and certain schemes and orders, including stopping orders that have been obtained under section 247 of the Act. Essentially, the procedure is one whereby an aggrieved person can make an application to the High Court complaining that the order has not been made within an appropriate power, or that a procedural requirement has not been complied with.

There is no dispute but that the relevant date for the making of such an application was six weeks before 5 th July, but that it expired on 5 th July; in other words, there is a six-week period after making the appropriate calculations in respect of which there is no apparent dispute here, which was 5 th July. So that is six weeks from 24 th May, after making the appropriate allowances. So Mr Eatessami was one day outside the stipulated period.