HUMPHRYS and CITY OF STIRLING

The case between Humphrys and the City of Stirling involved a dispute over costs related to a town planning development application. The original decision-maker had approved an identical proposal two years earlier, but the approval had lapsed. The key issue was whether the original decision-maker genuinely attempted to make a decision on its merits. The applicant argued that since the proposal was identical to the one previously approved, the council should not be allowed to incur additional costs for a new assessment. The City of Stirling contended that despite the similarity, it was entitled to make a fresh decision on the merits.

The court examined the principles surrounding costs and the genuine attempt to make a decision on its merits. It considered whether there had been any changes in the planning framework or circumstances since the previous approval. The court held that the genuine attempt to make a decision on its merits was contingent upon whether there had been a change in the planning framework or circumstances since the previous approval. As there was no such change, the court found that the original decision-maker had not genuinely attempted to make a decision on its merits.

Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the applicant, determining that the City of Stirling was not entitled to recover costs from the applicant. The court emphasised that the identical nature of the proposal, coupled with the absence of any changes in the planning framework or circumstances, led to the conclusion that the original decision-maker had not made a genuine attempt to assess the proposal on its merits. As a result, the City of Stirling was ordered to bear its own costs in relation to the application.