![[2025] UKUT 051 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Heading
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Appeal No. UA-2024-000057-GCRB
(ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER) [2025] UKUT 051 (AAC)
On Appeal from the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) CR/2022/0007
BETWEEN
Appellant DRAGONFLY ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES LIMITED
and
Respondent BRIGHTON & HOVE CITY COUNCIL
BEFORE UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WEST
Decided on consideration of the papers: 28 August 2024
DECISION
- Heading
- Section 1
- The First-tier Tribunal Decision
- Permission to Appeal
- The Statutory Framework
- The Grounds of Appeal
- The Council’s Submissions
- The Appellant’s Reply
- Analysis
- Section 9
- Section 10
- the test is not one of the civil standard of proof, which is designed to produce one outcome; the language of the statute is consistent with a number of realistic outcomes co-existing: Patel at [8], C
- it is important not to concentrate on the hard-headed commercial or financial analysis and a detailed business case is not required, but it is necessary to show a sensible and practical idea of what c
- the test is a low one, but there must be at least some indication that the aspirations are realistic: Carsberg at [20]
- The Decision under Appeal
- Conclusion Conclusions