Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Planning permission. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant of planning permission to the interested party for a class A1 retail store and related development. The Planning Court, in allowing the application, held that the full impact of the proposed development had not been clearly set out in the officers' report and the committee had not been properly informed of the true extent of the likely harm. Further, nowhere in the officers' report had it been explained why benefits under s 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 had been 'necessary' to have made the development acceptable. 

Personal injury – Liability – Damages. Court of Session: In an action by a motorcyclist who underwent a below-knee left leg amputation after he collided in darkness with a milk tanker which was reversing into a farm road and blocking the road on which he was travelling, the court concluded that the accident was caused partly by the fault of the pursuer and partly by the fault of the defenders, that the proportion of blame attributable to the pursuer fell to be assessed at 40%, and that damages for the cost of prosthetics must be calculated in accordance with the defenders' expert's recommendations. 

Immigration – Leave to appeal – Judicial review. Court of Session: Refusing a judicial review petition by a Zimbabwean national, whose appeal against the refusal of his application to have a deportation order revoked was dismissed by the First Tier Tribunal, and who sought reduction of the Upper Tribunal's decision refusing him permission to appeal, the court rejected arguments that there had been a collapse of fair procedure and that the consequences for the petitioner if he was returned to Zimbabwe would be drastic, and held that the test in Eba v Advocate General for Scotland was not satisfied. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellants appealed against orders for their extradition to Lithuania to face criminal prosecutions for abuse of office, theft, forgery and fraudulent management of accounts. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeals, held that there was no risk that the appellants were being prosecuted on account of, or that their trial would be prejudiced because of, their political opinions. There was no evidence of a real risk that the threshold as to art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights would be reached with respect to the prison conditions. Further, the judge had given adequate reasons and further disclosure was not justified. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant to the interested party of planning permission to remove conditions of a planning permission, which limited the use of eight buildings to holiday lets. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, whilst there was no express finding of conflict with the development plan in the officers' report, the officers' approach, which had been to examine the impacts of the development proposed, could not be said to have significantly misled the members. Further, the committee had been aware of all material considerations. 

Practice – Amendment. The claimant had brought proceedings in 2008 against the defendants. In 2010, the court had given judgment in the defendants' favour. In the present proceedings, the claimant contended that the 2010 judgment had been acquired as a result of fraud on the part of the defendants and sought permission to amend her particulars of claim to include a claim for damages for conspiracy/deceit. The Chancery Division held that the new claim was not an abuse of process, but that permission for the proposed amendments would not be granted as they included allegations not arising from the same or substantially the same facts as the claim itself. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The respondent Secretary of State refused the first and third appellants' applications for leave to remain under Appendix FM to the Immigration Rules and decided that there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant the grant of leave to remain outside the Rules, under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) refused to grant them permission to seek judicial review. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellants' appeals. In so doing, it considered, inter alia, the nature and application of the phrase 'insurmountable obstacles', as used in para EX.1 of Appendix FM to the Rules. 

Local government – Council tax. The claimant sought judicial review of the justices' order for costs of £125 against him in the local authority's favour as costs of obtaining a liability order concerning his unpaid council tax. The Administrative Court set out guidance as to the interpretation and scope of reg 34 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, SI 1992/613. It held that the justices had not had sufficient relevant information, and had erred in failing to make inquiries as to the computation and elements of the £125. Further, the claimant had been denied a fair opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of the proposed order by the authority's failure to provide information as to the calculation of the sum. 

European Union – Trade marks. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal brought by Voss of Norway ASA (Voss) in which it sought to have set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union, by which that court had refused to annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), relating to invalidity proceedings between Nordic Spirit AB (publ) and Voss, concerning the registration by Voss of a three-dimensional Community trade mark. 

Divorce – Costs. The wife appealed against an order of the Court of Appeal of Jamaica dismissing her appeal in respect of her applications under the Married Women's Property Act 1887 (Jamaica) (the 1987 Act) and the Matrimonial Causes Act 1989 (Jamaica) (the 1989 Act). The Board held that the appeal under the 1887 Act would be dismissed but the appeal under the 1989 Act would be allowed and her application reheard.