Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Planning authority. The Planning Court dismissed the claimant's applications for judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's decisions to hold a referendum on a draft neighbourhood plan. It had been appropriate for the plan to be made without allocating any further housing land and adequate reasons had been given. The relevant matters had been considered and the scoring system used to select sites for allocation in the plan had not been legally flawed. 

Solicitor – Retainer. The Chancery Division considered the enforceability of a contract between the claimant company, Garnat, and its solicitors, TC. The court held that the retainer between the parties, as amended by an agreement made whilst representing Garnat in an appeal, was partly unenforceable. The unenforceable provisions could be severed. It followed that TC was entitled to charge Garnat for any work falling within the scope of the retainer, excluding the appeal. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal by Toshiba Corporation (Toshiba), asking the Court to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 21 May 2014 in Toshiba v Commission (T‑519/09, whereby the General Court had dismissed Toshiba's action for annulment of Decision C(2009) 7601 final of the European Commission of 7 October 2009 relating to a proceeding under art 81 EC in respect of Toshiba's participation in an unlawful cartel in relation to the market for power transformers. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that the obligation of transparency, which flowed from art 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, precluded the extension by a member state, to all employers and employees within a sector, of a collective agreement concluded by the employers' and employees' respective representatives for a sector, under which a single economic operator, chosen by the social partners, was entrusted with the management of a compulsory social insurance scheme established for employees, where the national rules did not provide for publicity sufficient to enable the competent public authority to take full account of information which had been submitted concerning the existence of a more favourable offer. 

Trespass to the person – Battery. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimant's application for damages and declaratory relief against the defendant Metropolitan Police Commissioner for battery, negligence and breach of his right to life, under art 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (art 2), brought as a result of being shot by an officer. The claimant had been shot in lawful self-defence, the police had not owed him a duty of care and art 2 had not been violated by the shooting or the planning and conduct of the operation. 

Constitutional law – Foreign sovereign state. The Queen's Bench Division ordered that a Nigerian judgment, which awarded the claimants special damages for the equivalent of approximately £400m, be registered against the third defendant as a judgment in the Queen's Bench Division. However, the court dismissed the claimants' application to register the judgment against the first and second defendants, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Attorney General of the Federation respectively, where, on the true construction of the State Immunity Act 1978, the first and second defendants were immune from the jurisdiction of the court. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant of planning permission for an extensive development of two sites. A heritage contribution, pursuant to an agreement under s 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, was lawful, the authority had given sufficient reasons and the conclusion that the authority had been unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing had been justified. 

Evidence – Admissibility. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant tenants' appeal concerning the applicability of the 'without prejudice' privilege to certain discussions that had taken place between the second tenant and the defendant landlord's solicitor. The entirety of the discussions at the first interview and thereafter in correspondence, and at the second interview were properly to be regarded as having been protected by without prejudice privilege, which had not been waived. 

Solicitor – Disciplinary proceedings. The Divisional Court allowed the Solicitors Regulation Authority's appeal against the decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (the SDT), granting an anonymity order against a solicitor found guilty of one of seven offences, which was considered a minor matter and at the lowest level. The SDT's decision had been contrary to principle and it had also not been one which it could rationally have made on the facts of the case. However, the SDT's decision, refusing the solicitor his costs against the SRA, was upheld. 

Company – Articles of association. The Chancery Division held that the proper construction of the claimant companies' articles of association had been to value the defendants' minority shareholdings on the basis of a pro rata proportion of the value of the whole equity of the claimants. In addition to publicly available information, the accountants undertaking the valuation of the shares were also entitled to further available information which related to the companies.