Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Planning Court dismissed the claimants' challenge to the decision of the inspector appointed by the defendant Secretary of State to grant planning permission to the interested party. On the proper interpretation of 'person aggrieved' in s 288(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the claimant's had no standing, as they had not made objections or representations during the appeal procedure. 

Practice – Striking out. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendant Metropolitan Police Commissioner's appeal against the judge's refusal to strike out the claimants' case. It was impossible to characterise the judge's decision as perverse. 

Libel and slander – Defamatory words. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the defendant newspaper's application for a ruling that the article was not capable of bearing the meaning pleaded by the claimant and that the articles did not bear any meaning defamatory of the claimant band member. The statement was capable of having the meaning attributed to it by the claimant and the statement was capable of being defamatory of the claimant. 

Trade mark – Community trade mark. The Chancery Division dismissed an appeal against the decision of a hearing officer dismissing the claimant company's application, under s 47 of the Trade Marks Act 1994, for a declaration of invalidity of a trade mark registration for a sign 'Gutterclearuk' in the defendant's name. The hearing officer had not erred in principle and her decision that there was no likelihood of either direct or indirect confusion and that the defendant company had not acted in bad faith in filing its trade mark application had been open to her. 

Pension – Appeal. The Chancery Division allowed the defendant company's appeal against the deputy ombudsman's decision that its refusal to grant a former employee an unreduced pension was perverse and amounted to maladministration. The deputy ombudsman had erred in finding that the defendant had decided that the claimant should leave its employment in its own interest and on the grounds of business efficiency, entitling him to an early payment of an unreduced pension under reg 19 of the Local Government Pension Scheme (Benefits, Membership and Contributions) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/1166) (reg 19). On the evidence, the primary ground for the claimant's dismissal could not sensibly be said to have been business efficiency. The court also construed reg 19. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection allowed an application by two attorneys for retrospective approval for the payments to them for n order for retrospective approval of monthly payments of £150 each that the attorney's had made to themselves and to their third sibling from the funds of the estate. 

Negligence – Causation. The Queen's Bench Division allowed a personal injury claim by a man who had attended at the defendant's accident and emergency department complaining of chest pains, but who had been streamed to a same day treatment centre. There had been a breach of duty on the part of the defendant. Had a history been taken and relevant risk factors identified, he would not have been streamed and tests would have shown the existing cardiac condition that he had. Intervention at that time would have avoided the subsequent severe heart difficulties and stroke that he suffered. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimant's claim against the defendant hospital in respect of cerebral palsy which he suffered which he alleged had been caused by oxygen deprivation in the period leading up to his birth. The court found that the doctors had not made decisions that had fallen outside the range of reasonable professional opinion. 

Building contract – Construction. The Technology and Construction Court considered preliminary issues relating to liability for negligence in the defendants' alleged failure to discover asbestos contamination on a development site. The court made rulings as to the correct interpretation of the relevant agreements. 

Practice – Appeal. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed an appeal of the defendant to a money judgment in favour of the claimant debt collection company as there had been no basis for the case being before the High Court. Although the defendant had made a number of without merit applications the court would not made a Civil Restrain Order against the defendant as the case was at an end.