Latest Cases

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. 

European Union – Taxation. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 6(3) TEU, arts 34, 36, 52(1), 56 and 61 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and arts 1, 8 and 9 of Directive (EC) 98/34. The request had been made in proceedings brought by Berlington Hungary Tanácsadó és Szolgáltató kft and other companies against Hungary concerning an action seeking compensation brought by those companies for the damage that they had allegedly suffered as a result of the application of national legislation concerning the operation of slot machines contrary to European Union law. 

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. 

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. 

Minor – Abduction. A was three years and nine months old, and had been living in the United Kingdom with her mother since May 2014. A was born in Hungary and her mother was Hungarian. In December 2013 the mother and A returned to Hungary. The father brought proceedings for A's summary return to Italy pursuant to the provisions of the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, which drafted into UK law the provisions of the Hague Convention and the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The Family Division held that A was habitually resident in Hungry at the time of her removal to the UK and that the father's application had to be dismissed. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The judge awarded the claimant damages for personal injuries suffered as a result of the defendant's negligence in the operation of its Hyper Jump. The defendant appealed against her finding of liability and quantum. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had been entitled to reach the conclusions she had on the evidence before her. It would not be appropriate to interfere with her factual findings as to liability or her assessment of quantum. 

Adoption – Order. The applicants applied to adopt a child, C. During the course of the pregnancy and around the time of C's birth, they paid sums of money to the parents, various sums of which were subsequently repaid. The Family Division held that it was in C's welfare best interests that he be made the subject of an adoption order in favour of the applicants. There had been no attempt to hide the arrangement from the authorities because the arrangement, although contravening s 92 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, had been a genuine and sincere arrangement, and not in any sense a commercial arrangement which was contrary to the interests of C. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 should be interpreted as meaning that legal proceedings for compensation for disturbance of ownership and property rights, contractual performance and damages, brought by private persons who were holders of government bonds against the issuing state, fell within the scope of that regulation in so far as it did not appear that they were manifestly outside the concept of civil or commercial matters. 

Practice – Striking out. The Chancery Division previously ordered the claimant's copyright infringement claim to be struck out unless he filed proper particulars and claimed damages less than £30,000. The defendants invited the court to confirm their understanding that the claimant had not complied with the unless order and so the action stood automatically struck out. The Chancery Division held that the claimant's claim remained for £2,560,000 calculated on a grossly inflated basis in breach of the unless order. It further refused relief from sanctions. 

European Union – Trade marks. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Best-Lock (Europe) Ltd (Best-Lock), established in the United Kingdom, against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning invalidity proceedings between Best-Lock and Lego Juris A/S in relation to the successful registration by the latter company of a three-dimensional trade mark depicting a toy figure.