Newing & Ors v Silcock & Ors

Newing and others brought a case against Silcock and others in relation to a house constructed to a height exceeding 8.5 metres without approval, which was subsequently approved after a stay order by the Supreme Court. The central issue before the court was whether the subsequent approval was validly granted, particularly focusing on whether the assessment officer had erred in considering relevant factors and whether this error could be imputed to the delegate who made the decision. The court also examined whether the rule in Jones v Dunkel applies and if the discretion should be exercised to withhold relief.

The court found that the assessment officer did not err in the consideration of relevant factors and that the approval was validly granted. The court held that the rule in Jones v Dunkel did not apply in this instance, as the error, if any, was not of such a nature that it would lead to a conclusion that the decision-maker did not exercise their discretion. The court further determined that even if there had been an error, it could not be imputed to the delegate, and the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable. Finally, the court considered whether to exercise its discretion to withhold relief but concluded that it was not appropriate to do so in these circumstances.

The court dismissed the application, affirming that the approval of the house's construction was valid and that the decision-maker did not act unreasonably. The court did not see grounds to withhold relief, thereby upholding the approval granted for the construction.