Hassans represents Hepta Limited in significant judicial review claim.

On 16 July 2025, the Honourable the Chief Justice handed down his judgment in the The King (on the application of Hepta Limited) v Dr Joseph Garcia proceedings (2024/ORD/019). 

Hepta commenced judicial review proceedings challenging the decision of the Deputy Chief Minister to refuse permission for Hepta to construct a 15-storey (ground floor plus fifteen storeys) mixed commercial and residential development to the western side of Waterport Fountain. 

Hepta’s case was that HMGOG (through its agents or representatives) had approved detailed revised plans of the development (the “Revised Plans”) at a meeting on 11 May 2022, which was the culmination of many years of negotiations between HMGOG and Hepta in respect of the development. These negotiations had led Hepta to significantly amend its designs for the development, at great cost, on several occasions. Following approval of the Revised Plans by HMGOG, Hepta successfully obtained full planning permission for the Revised Plans and then sought to negotiate a premium with HMGOG for the development. 

However, despite having agreed to the Revised Plans, on 17 November 2023, HMGOG communicated to it that HMGOG was not willing to negotiate a premium for a 15-storey development. Hepta sought to challenge this decision on the basis that it had a legitimate expectation that it would be permitted to construct the development in line with the Revised Plans and/or that HMGOG’s decision not to negotiate a premium for a 15-storey development was irrational in the light of its earlier decision to approve the Revised Plans and the full planning permission which had been granted for the Revised Plans. 

At trial, the Deputy Chief Minister challenged these two grounds of the claim and also advanced several other challenges including that: (a) the claim was not susceptible to judicial review; (b) the decision of 17 November 2023 was not a decision; (c) Hepta had not exhausted all of its other legal remedies: (d) the claim was out of time; (e) the claim did not identify any errors of law; (f) the Court could not grant the relief sought; and (g) the Deputy Chief Minister was the wrong defendant. The Deputy Chief Minister’s evidence also denied that HMGOG had ever approved the Revised Plans on 11 May 2022 or at all. 

Judgment

In a 37-page judgment, the Chief Justice dismissed the majority of the challenges submitted on behalf of the Deputy Chief Minister. A summary of the Chief Justice’s judgment is as follows: 

1. The claim is amenable to judicial review – The fact that HMGOG chose to manage the land which Hepta sought to develop by reference to planning considerations of a “Green Gibraltar” brought this case into the remit of judicial review; 
2. The Deputy Chief Minister was the correct Defendant – The decision for the sale or grant of leases is a matter for HMGOG of which the Defendant was the Minister responsible for Lands and Oversight of Government Projects; 
3. Hepta had not failed to exhaust alternative remedies – Arbitration was clearly limited in respect of the relief sought by Hepta in these proceedings; 
4. The claim was not out of time – The Defendant did not satisfy the Court that the claim was made out of time; and
5. The communication of 17 November 2023 was a reviewable decision – The Defendant’s submission that the decision had been communicated in a without prejudice privileged context failed.

Importantly, in addition to the above, at paragraph 73, it was also found that the Revised Plans had been approved by HMGOG. The Chief Justice held: “On the basis of the foregoing, I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that at the meeting held on 11 May 2022 HMGOG, through its representatives, approved the Revised Plans.”

The Chief Justice remarked that he could “understand why Hepta feels aggrieved” but dismissed the claim on the bases that: 

(a) the approval of the Revised Plans was too uncertain for a legitimate expectation to arise; and (b) that the decision was not outside the range of reasonable decisions which a public authority could take so as to make it irrational. 

Hepta has 14 days from the hand down to decide if to appeal this judgment.

Hepta was represented at trial by Lewis Baglietto KC, Moshe Levy and Sam Marrache.