Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Conservation. The proceedings concerned a challenge to a policy contained in the Wealden District (incorporating part of the South Downs National Park) Core Strategy Local Plan, which provided, inter alia, that, for new development within 7km of Ashdown Forest, suitable alternative natural green space was to be provided. The claimant's claim seeking to quash the core strategy in whole or in part was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the claimant's appeal, held that the policy, in so far as it related to the 7km zone, had been adopted in breach of the duty, under reg 12 of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, SI 2004/1633, relating to the assessment of reasonable alternatives. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant applied to quash the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State to dismiss his appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the change of use of land for a caravan site. The Planning Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that there had been ample evidence upon which the inspector had been entitled to reach his conclusions and it was apparent that the identified highway safety risks had existed independently of any driver error. The weight which the inspector had accorded to highway safety was both rational and within the legitimate scope of his judgment. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. In a case with an application by a deputy under s 18(1)(b) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for 'the sale, exchange, charging, gift or other disposition of a patient's property, the Court of Protection allowed the application in circumstances where the disposition was to pay the school fees of the patient's brother and such payment was in the patient's best interests. 

Practice – Compromise of action. Following settlement of an action, the appellant's shares in a company were to be purchased by the first respondent at a price to be determined by an independent valuer. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the valuation as not being in accordance with the valuer's mandate as set out in the Tomlin Order. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal as, on the true construction of the express terms of the settlement, the valuer had been instructed to arrive at his valuation with regard to the books and records, including the handwritten takings, of the company. He had failed to take into account the handwritten takings and so had not followed his mandate. 

Contract – Termination of contract. The Chancery Division held that Sainsbury's had been entitled to terminate a conditional agreement for the purchase of a stadium from the defendant, Bristol Rovers (1883) Ltd, where a condition precedent of the contract which required Sainsbury's to obtain an acceptable store planning permission to redevelop the stadium as a supermarket, had not been satisfied. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The claimant local planning authority sought the committal of the defendant for contempt of court by reason of breaches of an injunction in relation to unauthorised use of land. The Queen's Bench Division held that the appropriate sentence was one of four months' imprisonment, but that would be suspended provided the defendant adhered to the timings set out in the undertakings which were accepted and the court's order. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's failure to take enforcement action against the interested parties' motocross track, and its decision to grant planning permission for extended use and a noise attenuation barrier. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that there had been no error in the authority's approach to enforcement as the correct questions had been addressed. Further, it had been entitled to conclude that the proposed development would result in an improvement to amenity with a reduction in noise levels when compared to the existing use. 

Company – Shareholder. The Chancery Division granted the claimant minority shareholder of a company (BL), permission to continue a derivative action brought against the director of companies, owned by BL, who was alleged to have breached his fiduciary duties, resulting in loss to the companies. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The Commercial Court considered the preliminary issue of which law would apply to a fraud perpetrated in Geneva, in which funds had been sent from the claimant bank, which was in Geneva, to London. The court held that English law would apply on the proper application of European Parliament and Council (EC) Regulation 864/2007 (on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations). 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant applied, under s 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to quash the decision by an inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State to grant outline planning permission to erect 73 dwellings, contending that the screening opinion adopted by the second defendant local planning authority had been unlawful. The application was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that, on a fair reading of the screening opinion, the planning officer had not failed to have regard to the issue of cumulative impact. Further, the reasoning, albeit brief, had not been inadequate.