Latest Cases

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. 

Town and country planning – Enforcement notice. The Queen's Bench Division refused the defendant's application to vary an injunction obtained by the claimant planning authority against the defendant in respect of building works erected without planning permission. The court also found that the defendant was in breach of a consent order requiring compliance with the previous enforcement notices. An appropriate sanction would be a three month suspended sentence, suspended on the condition that the defendant comply with all the enforcement notices. 

Value added tax – Exemptions. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant taxpayer's appeal against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) upholding the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) that it was not an 'eligible body' for the purposes of Note (1)(b) of Group 6 in Sch 9 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994. Even though it was supplying educational services, the taxpayer failed to meet the European Union law-compliant supplier condition for the education exemption. 

Immigration – Deportation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the Secretary of State's appeal in a deportation case, held that, although the tribunals below had been wrong to conclude that the respondent Italian national had acquired a right of permanent residence in the United Kingdom, under reg 15 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/1003, the error had not been material to the outcome and there was, therefore, no basis upon which to set aside the determination of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). 

Child – Care. The Family Court held that the only way in which the future of a 12-year-old boy could be safeguarded was by making him a ward of court. He could not be made a ward whilst he was subject to an interim care order and so that order would be discharged. For the same reasons, it was contrary to his welfare to allow care proceedings to continue and, accordingly, the local authority was given permission to withdraw its application for a care order. 

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. 

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. 

Compensation – Criminal injuries. The Court of Protection held, in what was agreed to be a matter of general importance, that a deputy or an attorney acting on behalf of an applicant in regard to an award under the Criminal Injury Compensation Authority could accept and finalise a such an award on behalf of a patient. Section 20(3)(a) and further or alternatively s 20(3)(c) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 did not preclude a deputy from so doing. 

Town and country planning – Development. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant of planning permission for the redevelopment of a site within the buffer zone of the Liverpool world heritage site. Paragraph 18a-036 of the National Planning Practice Guidance had not required notification of the application to the UNESCO World Heritage Committee for consultation. 

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.