Latest Cases

Air traffic – Airport. There was no evidential basis for the legitimate expectation alleged by the claimants, that the defendant Secretary of State would select their proposal for an extension of the current Heathrow northern runway so that it could effectively operate as two separate runways, if he found it to be the most suitable scheme. The Division Court, in dismissing the claimants' application for judicial review, further dismissed their competition law claim, as the Secretary of State had not placed any material reliance upon the risk that the claimants were not owners/operators of Heathrow and would not implement their scheme.

Air traffic – Airport. The defendant Secretary of State's designation concerning a third runway at Heathrow had not been unlawful by not treating proposals for a second runway at Gatwick as an alternative for the purposes of art 6(3) and (4) of Council Directive (EEC) 92/43, had not breached art 5(1) and (2) of Directive (EC) 2001/42, or by reason of the Secretary of State not carrying out the required statutory consultation with an open mind. Accordingly, the Divisional Court dismissed the claimants' application for judicial review of the decision.

Divorce – Financial provision. Following a Russian divorce on the husband's petition, the wife successfully applied, pursuant to s 13 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, for leave to apply for financial relief in England and Wales, contending that the husband was vastly wealthier than had been reflected in the Russian proceedings. The Family Division held that it had jurisdiction to grant permission given that the husband had been habitually resident in the UK for several years, and that, on the facts, the wife had demonstrated that there was a substantial ground for the court to grant leave. Among other things, the court considered that there was merit in the wife's argument that the Russian process had not involved the sort of full and frank disclosure which would justify placing very significant weight on the Russian ruling, so as to seriously undermine the solidity of the wife's application.

Company – Merger. Two applications for the sanction, under reg 16 of the Companies (Cross-Border Mergers) Regulations 2007, SI 2007/2974, of two linked cross-border mergers of companies within the Interoute group of companies were granted. The Companies Court decided that: (i) the formal requirements under reg 16(1) had been met; and (ii) the test set out in Diamond Resorts (Europe) Ltd, Re[2012] EWHC 3576 (Ch), regarding whether the courts had a discretion regarding the approval of a merger, had been satisfied.

Licence – Licence to occupy premises. In relation to the licence of a property granted by a private landlord's agent to the respondent local authority, the requirements of Sch 1, para 6b of the Housing Act 1985 were satisfied by the provision for vacant possession on not less than 14 days' notice. Accordingly, the Queen's Bench Division dismissed the applicant's appeal against the decision that her agreement with the authority for occupation of the licensed property was not an agreement that attracted the security of tenure provisions of the Housing Act 1985.

Right of way – Private right of way. The claimants succeeded in a dispute concerning the rights of way over land that they had purchased from the defendants. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, the claimants had rights of way over the two relevant drives. An injunction was not required, and existing cross-undertakings would remain in force until further order, but would be discharged in three months after the handing-down of the judgment.

Town and country planning – Development. A planning inspector had misinterpreted and misapplied relevant policies of the development plan when allowing the appellant developer's appeal against the local authority's refusal to grant permission for the development of dwellings on land in Kent. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant developer's appeal against the quashing of the inspectors' decision.

Pensions ombudsman – Jurisdiction. The appellant had complained to the pensions ombudsman on the issue of interest payable on late payments of pension benefits, pursuant to reg 94 of the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 1997 (the 1997 regulations). The pensions ombudsman had misdirected himself that he had had jurisdiction to determine the due date, under reg 94 of the 1997 regulations, for the first payment to the appellant from a pension scheme, and also when the appellant had retired from that scheme. Accordingly, the Chancery Division held, among other things, that the appellant's appeal on the ground that the ombudsman had erred in law, succeeded.

Compulsory purchase – Costs. The proceedings related to an award of costs made in favour of the respondent rail operator in connection with the appellants' claim for compensation for compulsory purchase. The very modest success the appellants had achieved in the claim was not enough to displace the finding that the respondent was truly the successful party in the reference when viewed as a whole. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellants' claim against an award of 80% of the respondent's costs incurred prior to the respondent's sealed offer.

Trust and trustee – Breach of trust. The appeals related to various findings made by the judge in proceedings arising from a fraud in which the first appellant company, Group Seven, had been defrauded of €100m by, among others, ETS. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held, among other things, that the judge's undisputed primary findings created an irresistible inference that the second respondent accountant had clearly suspected (if indeed he had not actually known) that the €100m had not been ETS', and that he had consciously decided to refrain from taking any step to confirm the true state of affairs for fear of what he might discover. Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal of the first appellant and others, and held that the second respondent, and the first respondent for whom he worked, were liable for dishonest assistance.