Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

Shipping – Collision. The Admiralty Court apportioned liability to four vessels following a collision at the port of Mumbai. It held that, among other things, r 9 of the Collision Regulations and Distress Signals Order 1977, SI 1977/982, still applied where a vessel was navigating around the outside of a dredged channel. 

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. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division refused to exercise its discretion in relation to an application by the husband to set aside an order for payment of child maintenance based on the service provisions in that order. Over two years had elapsed before the husband had taken the point on service, although he had taken many other meritless points about the validity of the order all of which had been dismissed. 

Immigration – European Economic Area nationals. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against a finding of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (FTT) that the appellant Brazilian national had entered into a marriage of convenience with a Portuguese national in order to re-enter and remain in the United Kingdom. While the legal burden of proof lay on the Secretary of State throughout, the evidential burden could shift. The errors in law made by the FTT had not been material to the outcome. 

European Union – Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union granted the declaration sought by the European Commission that by failing: (i) to include all the territories of the IPAS in the special protection area covering the Kaliakra region; (ii) approving the implementation of certain projects; (iii) to assess properly the cumulative effects of those projects, Bulgaria had failed to fulfil its obligations under art 6(2) of Council Directive (EEC) 92/43, art 4(1), (2), (4) of Directive (EC) 2009/147 and arts 2(1), 4(2) and (3) of Directive 2011/92/EU. 

Criminal law – Defence. The Divisional Court refused the claimant's application for a declaration that the effect of the 'householder's defence' in s 76(5A) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 was incompatible with art 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Section 76(5A) of the Act did not direct that any degree of force less than grossly disproportionate was reasonable and there were reasonable safeguards against the commission of offences against the person in householder cases. 

Construction contract – Arbitration. The Technology and Construction Court dismissed the claimant company's application for summary judgment to enforce the decision of an adjudicator in a case relating a woodworking machine. The court held that the defendant company had an arguable case that the adjudicator had lacked jurisdiction, because the machine did fulfil the criteria of a 'structure' under the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, but did not form part of the claimant's land, so that its installation at the claimant's premises had not been a 'construction operation' within the meaning of the Act. 

European Union – Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 2(35)(d), 17(1) and 50 of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 669/2008. The request had been made in proceedings between SC Total Waste Recycling SRL and the National Inspectorate of Environment and Nature, concerning an administrative fine imposed by the latter for infringements of the rules on shipments of waste.