Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Established use. The Planning Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's decisions to grant a certificate of lawfulness in respect of operational development and to refuse to take enforcement action. Consideration had been given to use, although it had not been required, and the authority's decision not to take enforcement action pending further applications had been a lawful and legitimate exercise of its discretion. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Chancery Division made rulings in a case concerning the disclosure of information about the running of a trust to the claimant, who was the daughter of the testatrix. As disclosure had occurred, only costs remained. The court held that the costs of both parties would be paid out of the trust fund, in each case on the indemnity basis. It further considered the extent to which trustees could seek to claim privilege as against beneficiaries in relation to certain documents and what, if anything, the defendants would be entitled to recover if they had been ordered to pay the costs of the claimant. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling deciding, among other things, that art 11A(1)(b) of Sixth Council Directive (EEC) 77/388 should be interpreted as meaning that the value of a right in rem granting its holder a right of use over immovable property and the cost of completing an office building built on the land in question could be included in the taxable amount of a supply, within the meaning of art 5(7)(a) of the Sixth Directive, where the taxable person had already paid VAT on that value and on that cost, but had also deducted the VAT immediately and in full. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled on an appeal and applications concerning the appropriate orders for costs following the respondent Secretary of State's withdrawal of her certification of human rights claims, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in EM (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2014] 2 All ER 192). 

Pension – Pension scheme. The Chancery Division ruled, in respect of a proposed transfer of the assets and liabilities of the Halcrow pension scheme to a new occupational pension scheme, that reg 12(3) of the Occupational Pension Schemes (Preservation of Benefit) Regulations 1991, SI 1991/167, should not be construed in a way which required the actuary to consider the security of the benefits in the transferring and receiving scheme when giving a certificate under that regulation. Further, it held that there was no scope for a different construction or analysis of reg 12(3) where the transferring scheme was in winding up from the situation where it was ongoing. 

Damages – Personal injury. The Queen's Bench Division held that, taking into account the claimant's psychological state and loss of capacity, he was entitled to an award of damages for pain suffering and loss of amenity in the sum of £192,500 for the damage cause by the admitted negligence of a hospital. 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Road traffic accident. PSLA of £2,785. The claimant suffered soft tissue injuries when his vehicle collided with the defendant's vehicle. The defendant was found liable. 

Post – Postal operator. The Administrative Court dismissed the judicial review proceedings commenced by the claimant international door-to-door courier of goods (DHL) against the information request served on it by the defendant Ofcom. DHL was a 'postal operator', within the meaning of the Postal Services Act 2011, and the request was not a nullity or disproportionate. 

Patent – Infringement. The Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court, in dismissing Saertex France SAS' claim for infringement of a patent concerning a method of manufacture of fibre-based reinforcements, ruled that the patent was invalid, both as granted and as conditionally proposed to be amended, for lack of novelty and inventive step. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. In the claimant indeterminate sentence prisoner's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to transfer him from open conditions back to closed conditions, following the introduction of a 'new absconder policy', the Administrative Court held that fairness had demanded that, after his return, the claimant be given sufficient reasons for the decision and an opportunity to make meaningful representations. However, subject to further argument, it was minded not to grant relief.