Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The present case concerned the boundaries to ministers being lobbied by a Member of Parliament (MP) about a matter affecting her constituency if their decision was not to be tainted by unlawfulness. The Planning Court held that there was nothing unlawful in ministers being lobbied by an MP on a constituency planning matter so long as ministers acted fairly and consistently with the standards of propriety set by the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000, SI 2000/1624, the Ministerial Code and planning propriety guidance. Accordingly, it dismissed the claimant's challenge to the refusal of planning permission for a wind farm. 

Will – Foreign will. The proceedings related to a will made by the deceased, B, in favour of D. B's niece, A, brought proceedings. The courts below found that there had been undue influence on the part of D. D appealed. The Privy Council, in dismissing the appeal, held that, among other things, issues of unjust enrichment in Saint Lucia had to be determined under English law. The court below had not erred. 

Costs – Order for costs. Following the settlement of a claim, the judge conducted a detailed assessment of costs and decided, inter alia, two preliminary issues relating to the conditional fee agreement (CFA) which the claimant's litigation friend had entered into with his solicitors. The MIB appealed against the judge's order. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the appeal in part, ruled as to, inter alia, the assessment of the success fee and an issue concerning the 'back-dating' of the CFA. 

Damages – Personal injury. The claimant's wife had become seriously ill following a hysterectomy, in consequence of the admitted negligence of the defendant NHS Trust. In the county court, it was found that it had been the sight of the sudden shocking state and condition of his wife which had triggered the claimant's mental illness, and he was awarded damages as a secondary victim of the trust's admitted negligence. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing an appeal by the trust, held that the circumstances with which the claimant had been confronted fell far short of those which had been recognised by the law as founding secondary victim liability. 

Trust and trustee – Trustee. The Chancery Division held that, on the true construction of trust deeds in respect of family land, the sons would not at any stage acquire an absolute interest in any share which passed to them on the death of the survivor of their parents. Further, the court had the power to give to retrospectively approve a transaction, which would otherwise be a breach of the self‑dealing rule, which prevented trustees from purchasing trust property. 

Copyright – Infringement. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to introduce a new s 28B into the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which created an exception to copyright based upon personal private use, without a compensation scheme. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that Secretary of State's decision had been nowhere near to having been justified by the evidence that had been specifically accepted and endorsed. Accordingly, the decision to introduce s 28B of the Act in the absence of a compensation mechanism had been unlawful. 

Town and country planning – Planning authority. The claimant had, unsuccessfully, sought judicial review of the defendant planning authority's decision to proceed to a referendum on a local development plan and against the conclusion that a strategic environmental assessment had not been required. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal. Regulation 5(2)(b) of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, SI 2012/767, on its true construction, did permit allocation of sites for particular development in national development plans. Further, it could not be said that the author of the screening report had failed to take the positive environmental effects of the development plan into account. 

Medical negligence – Negligent surgery/ failure to organise appropriate surgery – Quantum. Court of Session: In an action in which the defenders admitted liability for negligent operations on the pursuer, who had fractured the neck of his left femur in a fall, and negligent failure to organise appropriate surgery when he was suffering chronic infection, which resulted in him becoming effectively wheelchair‑bound, the court held that an appropriate award for solatium was £135,000, that no deduction in relation to accommodation costs should be made because the pursuer now had a bigger and better property, that a total of 49 hours of care per week should be allowed, but that the costs of setting up and administering a personal injury trust and the costs of a case manager were not recoverable from the defenders. 

Practice – Injunction. In the course of proceedings concerning a claim alleging deceit and misrepresentation, among other things, a freezing order had been granted, without notice, against the defendant company, which was alleged to have deceitfully promoted a scheme, which the claimants had invested in. The defendant applied to discharge the injunction or for summary judgment on the claim. The Chancery Division held that there were grounds for discharging the freezing order where there had been material non-disclosure and misrepresentations at the without notice hearing. However, it granted the claimants an opportunity to adduce a further amended pleading and, accordingly, declined to grant summary judgment. 

Immigration – Asylum – Judicial review. Court of Session: Refusing a judicial review petition brought by an asylum seeker after the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) allowed his asylum claim on appeal and the Upper Tribunal (UT) subsequently set aside the FTT decision and directed that there be a re-determination, the court held that the UT decision was competently amenable to judicial review, the petition raised 'a point of principle or practice' and the judicial review application was not barred by delay by the petitioner, however the UT determination would and should have been no different if it had been made after the Supreme Court's decision in another case concerning the treatment and evidential value of language analysis for the determination of origin.