000			01176cam a2200193 4500
001			ABS65428
008			020429n2002 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u117745
100			_aCastorina, G
245			_aTime to be prompted into action
260			_c2002
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(0215) 13 April 2002, 127(1)
520			_aLooks at how applications to review administrative decisions face tight deadlines, but how, for planning decisions, courts have adopted an inconsistent approach to concept of promptness. Points out that the rules governing time limits for submitting applications to court for permission to apply for judicial review of administrative decisions are unclear. Cites case of 'R v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council, ex parte Burkett[2001]', where a judgment from the House of Lords is expected on this concept. Observes that the courts appear to want a third party to closely monitor progress of a planning application.
590			_aABS
650			_aR V HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM LBC EX P BURKETT
650			_aPLANNING APPLICATIONS
690			_aENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND CONSULTANCY-PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
942			_n0
999			_c70110 _d70110