Latest Cases

European Union – Freedom of establishment. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things, that art 2(2)(d) of Directive (EC) 2006/123 had to be interpreted as meaning that vehicle roadworthiness testing activities were excluded from the scope of application of that directive. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant of outline planning permission. The Planning Court, in allowing the application, held that a councillor's participation in the decision to grant planning permission, when he was a director of an association that had an interest in the development, had given rise to an appearance of potential bias. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimants applied for an order quashing the decision of the first defendant Secretary of State, allowing the third defendant's appeal against the second defendant local planning authority's refusal of planning permission for residential development. The Planning Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the Secretary of State's inspector had not been required to refer to the draft neighbourhood plan and the claimants had failed to establish any error on her part. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division held that the child A had no habitual residence due to being shuffled between Italy and Romania, He was familiar comfortable with both environments and was integrated into both families, therefore the father's application for the summary return of the child from Romania to Italy was dismissed. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Chancery Division considered an application by the second defendant to discharge a freezing injunction against him and the third defendant company. The court held that, since there was not a real risk of dissipation of assets, a freezing injunction was not appropriate, and the order would be discharged. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant of planning permission for the development of four poultry broiler units on agricultural land. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that it had been entirely open to the authority to have concluded that no environmental impacts justifying refusal had been disclosed and that there had been no error of law in considering the impact on a Grade II listed building. 

European Union – Directives. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 1(2) and 2(1) and (8) of Directive 2010/64/EU (on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings), and of arts 2, 3(1)(c) and 6(1) and (3) of Directive 2012/13/EU (on the right to information in criminal proceedings). The request had been made in criminal proceedings brought against Mr Covaci for road traffic offences committed by him. 

Barrister – Disciplinary proceedings. The appellant barrister appealed against the Council of the Inns of Court disciplinary tribunal's finding that he was guilty of professional misconduct. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the tribunal had given adequate reasons and had been fully aware of the context, and that the conduct was sufficiently serious as to amount to professional misconduct. 

European Union – Customs and excise. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things, that arts 4(1) and 5 of Directive 98/70 should be interpreted as meaning that they did not preclude a member state from laying down in its national law quality requirements that were additional to the ones contained in that directive for the marketing of diesel fuels, such as that relating to the flash point at issue in the main proceedings, since it did not constitute a technical specification of diesel fuels relating to the protection of health and the environment for the purposes of that directive. 

Land – Purchase of land. The Technology and Construction Court allowed the claimant company's claim for an outstanding fee due under an oral agreement. On the evidence, there was no basis to limit the fee as the defendant contended.