Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Trees. The appellant appealed against the decision of the inspector appointed by the first respondent Secretary of State, dismissing his appeal against a tree replacement notice. The Planning Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the inspector's use of 'potential trees' had referred to seedlings/saplings, which had been uncontroversial. He had been entitled to rely on an estimate of the number of trees removed and which were required to be planted. 

Mental health – Patient. AW's nephew and, DB, the brother-in-law of his companion, MG, made competing applications for appointments as his deputy for property and affairs. The parties disputed the status of the relationship between AW and MG. The Court of Protection held that MG was the most important person in AW's life and her views as to what was in his best interests carried considerable weight. On the evidence, DB would be appointed as AW's deputy. 

European Union – Customs and excise. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 1(2) of Council Directive (EC) 2008/118 (concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive (EEC) 92/12). The request was submitted in the context of a dispute between the Tallinn Enterprise Office and Statoil Fuel & Retail Eesti AS, concerning the reimbursement of a sales tax paid by that company in 2010 and 2011. 

European Union – Social security. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council (on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community), as amended. The request had been made in proceedings between Mr Kik and the Netherlands State Secretary for Finance concerning Mr Kik's insurance under the Netherlands social security scheme for a certain period. 

Damages – Personal injury. The claimant suffered a serious injury whilst working the in defendant's garden. He brought a claim against the defendant for damages for breach of a duty of care on the basis that the relationship between the parties was akin to that of employer/employee. The Queen's Bench Division held that the relationship was not as alleged by the claimant and therefore the claim would be dismissed. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Court allowed the claimant local authority's application for care and placement orders allowing a child, S, to be adopted. S's parents, particularly his father, had behaved violently. The court held that S would not be safe with his father, and that nothing would suffice other than the granting of the orders. 

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the appellant association, which was concerned with the protection of the environment of the Shetland Islands, against the decision by the Inner House of the Court of Session to uphold the decision by the respondent Scottish Ministers to grant consent to developers for the construction and operation of a wind farm. The Court held, amongst other things, that, contrary to the decision of the Lord Ordinary, the duty of the respondents in considering such development proposals was not to conduct a full review of their functions under Directive (EC) 2009/147 (on the conservation of wild birds), but to take that directive into account as one of a number of material considerations in reaching a lawful decision whether to grant consent under the Electricity Act 1989. 

Shipping – Charterparty. The claimant company, Spar, commenced arbitration proceedings against the defendant company, GCL, claiming the balance of hire due under certain charters and damages for loss of bargain in respect of the unexpired term of the charters. The Commercial Court held that, among other things, the charters had been validly signed. Although the payment of hire by GCL in accordance with the charters had not been a condition, Spar's common law right to damages for loss of bargain had been preserved, and Spar's claim succeeded. 

Contract – Illegality. The claimant carried on business as business transfer agents. It was common ground that the activities of the claimant fell within the definition of the expression 'estate agency work' in s 1(1) of the Estate Agents Act 1979. The relevance of that was the reference to 'estate agents' in the Money Laundering Regulations 2007, SI 07/2157. The parties entered into an agreement and a dispute arose. The claimant brought a claim based on the agreement. The defendant contended that the agreement was not enforcible for illegality. Applying established law, the Queen's Bench Division held that the agreement was illegal and was consequently unenforceable. 

Child – Care. An urgent application was made for a collection order regarding a vulnerable child. She was taken to a police station at 7.30pm, but was not collected until 3.02am. The Family Division stated that it was not acceptable for such an application to be granted by a judge and only then for inquiries to be made as to placement and transportation. It was incumbent on authorities to ensure that robust processes were in place.