Latest Cases

European Union – Freedom of establishment. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling deciding, among other things, that the deposits excluded under point 7 of Annex I to Directive (EC) 94/19, as amended by Directive (EC) 2009/14, were listed exhaustively in that provision, so that the member states could not provide, in their national law, for other categories of depositors who were not covered, in terms of the functions carried out, by the concepts listed in that point, in order for the exclusion from the deposit-guarantee to be applied to them. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant challenged the first defendant Secretary of State's decision, dismissing his appeal against the second defendant local planning authority's refusal to permit non-compliance with a condition previously attached to earlier permission. The Planning Court, in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State had failed to give adequate reasons for his decision and had failed to grapple with a principle issue adequately. 

European Union – Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that arts 2(a) and 3(2)(a) of Directive (EC) 2001/42 had to be interpreted as meaning that the adoption of a measure containing a plan or programme relating to town and country planning and land use falling within the scope of the Directive that modified an existing plan or programme could not be exempted from the obligation to carry out an environmental assessment under that directive on the ground that that measure was intended to give more specific expression to and implement a master plan established by a hierarchically superior measure that had not, itself, been the subject of such an environmental assessment. 

Immigration – Asylum. The claimant challenged the defendant Secretary of State's certification of her fresh claim for asylum as being clearly unfounded. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that there was no doubt that the decision to certify had been unlawful and that the claimant should not have been removed from the United Kingdom, as she had been. The Secretary of State was directed to ensure that the claimant might re-enter the UK. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling relating to the interpretation of art 5(1) and (3), and Chapter II, Section 5 (arts 18 to 21), and art 60(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001. The request had been made in proceedings between Holterman Ferho Exploitatie BV and three of its subsidiary companies and Mr Spies von Büllesheim concerning the latter's liability as manager of those companies and a claim that he be ordered to pay damages. 

Practice – Striking out. The Chancery Division ruled that the claimants' action, concerning joint venture agreements allegedly entered into by the deceased, would be struck out as an abuse of process where the claimants had failed to comply with the guidelines in Aldi Stores Ltd v WSP London Ltd[2007] All ER (D) 433 (Nov), by seeking directions from the judge as to their claims against the deceased estate in circumstances where a similar claim had been dismissed. An inexcusable failure to follow the Aldi guidelines was a heavyweight factor in favour of a finding of abuse of process. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 24 of Directive (EC) 2004/38 and art 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, as amended, should be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a member state under which nationals of other member states who were in a situation such as that referred to in art 14(4)(b) of that directive were excluded from entitlement to certain 'special non-contributory cash benefits' within the meaning of art 70(2) of Regulation 883/2004, which also constituted 'social assistance' within the meaning of art 24(2) of Directive 2004/38, although those benefits were granted to nationals of the member state concerned who were in the same situation. 

European Union – EU institutions. The General Court of the European Union upheld the action brought by SV Capital OU (SV) for annulment of Decision 2014-C1-02 of the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities which had dismissed the action brought by SV against the decision of the European Banking Authority to reject SV's request for an investigation to be initiated into the Estonian and Finnish financial sector supervisory authorities, pursuant to art 17(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 as a result of an alleged breach of EU law. The General Court decided that the Board of Appeal had lacked the competence to decide on that appeal on the basis of art 60(1) of that regulation. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things, that art 24(1) of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112 should be interpreted as meaning that the term 'supply of services' included subscription contracts for the supply of consulting services to an undertaking, in particular those of a legal, commercial or financial nature, under which a supplier had agreed to be available to the customer during the term of the contract. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant challenged the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State to grant planning permission for, among other things, the demolition of a single-storey former nightclub and the erection of a three-storey building with commercial and residential uses. The Planning Court dismissed the claimant's six grounds of challenge, including that the inspector had failed to take into account, as a material consideration, the harm the development would do to the viability of the claimant's tavern.