- Considered — McMahon v Watford Borough Council 2020-04-08
“… 811. In that context, Hotak has been considered in a number of subsequent cases in this court. They include Panayiotou v Waltham Forest London Borough Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1624, [2018] QB 1232 and Guiste v Lambeth LBC [2019] EWCA Civ 1758.…”
- Cited — James v Hertsmere Borough Council 2020-04-02
“… that support the breadth of the s. 204 jurisdiction for which the Appellant contends. However, this approach was questioned in Panayiotou v Waltham Forest LBC [2017] EWCA Civ 1624; [2018] QB 1232. That concerned two appeals from statutory review decisions. One (Smith) raised an argument that had been rejected in Tachie, namely that the l…”
- Cited — Guiste v The London Borough of Lambeth 2019-10-22
“…rough Council [2015] UKSC 30, [2016] AC 811. She also referred to the further guidance given by this court in Panayiotou v Waltham ForestLondon Borough Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1624, [2018] QB 1232. At paragraphs 24 and 25 of the Review Decision, Ms Ubiam described the nature of the Hotak test in terms of which no criticism has been made:…”
- Cited — Adesotu v Lewisham London Borough Council 2019-08-02
“… vires issue in the Anisminic sense” was therefore capable of being taken. On the other hand, in a postscript to his judgment in Panayiotou v Waltham ForestLBC [2017] EWCA Civ 1624; [2018] QB 1232 at 90 Lewison LJ, having referred to the decision in Tachie, said that he would not regard the point as by any means settled. He expressed his …”
- Considered — Rother District Council v Freeman-Roach 2018-03-06
“…The application of the test in Hotak was considered by this court in Panayiotou v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2017] EWCA Civ 1624, [2017] HLR 48 (‘Panayiotou’), in particular focusing on what the word ‘significantly’ connotes in Lord Neuberger’s exposition of the test. Lewison LJ first co…”
- Applied — Rother District Council v Freeman-Roach 2018-03-06
“…s on that formula. How that test applies to any given set of facts is a matter of evaluative judgment for the reviewing officer: Panayiotou v Waltham Forest BC [2017] EWCA Civ 1624, [2017] HLR 48 at [50]. At its highest the applicant’s case is that he might have made an underlying error of law. But as Lord Brown emphasised, such an infere…”