Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Planning permission. The second defendant local planning authority issued an enforcement notice against a range of unauthorised activities taking place on the site in question. The first defendant Secretary of State's inspector granted temporary planning permission for two years and imposed a noise cap. The interested party applied for planning permission to make the permission a permanent one. The Secretary of State issued a screening direction and planning permission was granted. The claimant's application for judicial review failed and the judge and declined to quash either the screening direction or the grant of a planning permission. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal. It held, inter alia, that the judge had been wholly entitled to have concluded that concerns about enforceability of the cap did not affect the underlying measurement of noise which was relevant for the test on screening, namely, whether the noise was likely to be significant. 

Gender – Gender recognition. The claimant male-to-female transsexual sought judicial review of the defendant Registrar General's requirement that she be recorded as 'father' in her children's birth certificates. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the birth registration scheme was not in breach of arts 8 or 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights in requiring a man who changed gender to female to be listed as 'father' on the full birth certificate of a child in respect of whom they were the biological father. 

Registered land – Rectification of registered title. Court of Session: Refusing an appeal by an appellant who was in dispute with the respondent as to the precise boundary of her property and who applied to the Lands Tribunal for rectification of the registered titles, the court held that the tribunal correctly concluded that the appellant's title was not capable of being construed so as to convey the solum of the track in front of her property, and was accordingly not habile to found the acquisition of title to that area by positive prescription, and it rejected arguments that the tribunal erred in relation to the respondent's possession of the disputed area and in its consideration of prejudice to her. 

Practice – Summary judgment. When the defendant purported to terminate a haulage and warehousing agreement with the claimant, the claimant issued proceedings alleging breach of the contractual arrangements between them based on conduct over the preceding years. The defendant applied for summary judgment. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claims, but allowed the claimant an opportunity to re-formulate its claim in respect of periods not covered by variations to the agreements where it was possible that a re-worked claim would have a real prospect of success. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling, deciding, amongst other things, that Directive (EC) 2005/29 of the European Parliament and of the Council (concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market) had to be interpreted as meaning that the communication, by a professional to a consumer, of erroneous information, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, should be classified as a 'misleading commercial practice', within the meaning of that directive, even though that information concerned only one single consumer. 

Practice – Civil Procedure Rules. The Master of the Rolls and Head of Civil Justice handed down new Practice Directions and amendments to the existing Practice Directions supplementing the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. 

Divorce – Separation. Following the conclusion of the parties' marriage, the wife made applications seeking orders regarding a property in London. S, a company in which the husband had shares, and which he had established, made a claim against the wife for possession of the property. The Family Division held that the property would be transferred to the wife, as would her shareholding in S. S's application was dismissed. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. There was a final consent order made in proceedings between the husband and wife. The wife applied to vary the order. The husband contended that the wife had to appeal for which she needed permission. The Family Division held that the wife was entitled to proceed as she had and that she did not need the permission of the court, guidance was also given on Family Procedure Rules 2955/10, 30.3(1)(a). 

Immigration – Workers. The claimant residential care home for the elderly sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision, removing it from the Tier 2 register of licensed sponsors on the basis that K had not had the role of public relations officer stated in his certificate of sponsorship. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had been entitled to rely upon interview records with the claimant's staff. Accordingly, the Secretary of State had been entitled to conclude that K's role had been substantially that of a senior care worker and not a public relations officer. 

Copyright – Infringement. The principal issue raised by the appeal was whether a technical drawing containing details of a septic tank was capable of protection under the Copyright Act (Ch 323). The Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas held that it was not and reversed the decision of the trial judge who had held that it was. The Privy Council held that the decision of the Court of Appeal on that issue had been wrong. The judge had been right in having held that, although the appellants could not prevent copying the septic tank itself, they had been entitled to prevent copying of the technical drawing.