Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant of planning permission for the installation of photovoltaic arrays mounted on frames covering 22.1ha of land neighbouring his Grade II listed building. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the authority had failed to: (i) consult English Heritage; (ii) discharge the duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings; (iii) consult the claimant in breach of his legitimate expectation arising from its statement of community involvement; and (v) conclude an environmental impact assessment was required. Accordingly, the planning permission would be quashed. 

Immigration – Removal. The claimant sought to withdraw his application for a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) visa, but the defendant Secretary of State refused it and decided to remove him from the United Kingdom. He was granted permission to seek judicial review solely on the ground that the Secretary of State had acted unlawfully and irrationally by failing to grant an in-country appeal. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant's precedent fact point was res judicata. Further, the case did not fall within the narrow band of circumstances in which the court would interfere with the out of country appeal process. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The Privy Council quashed the defendant's convictions in New Zealand for a rape and murder and held that the combination of the defendant's frequently contradictory and often implausible confessions and the diagnosis of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) led to only one possible conclusion, namely that reliance on his confessions gave rise to a risk of a miscarriage of justice 

Costs – Order for costs. SC commenced proceedings against H, in respect of sums he alleged he was owed for building work. H counterclaimed. In the course of proceedings, H brought a claim against KC, SC's father. He later sought to discontinue the claim against KC, and a dispute arose as to how the costs of the action against KC should be made. The Technology and Construction Court made rulings as to the attribution of costs. 

Prison – Prison conditions. The claimant was a non-smoker serving a sentence of indeterminate detention for public protection. He sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal to allow the NHS Smoke-Free Compliance Line to be put on the prison phone system for all prisoners. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State had proceeded on an erroneous understanding of the law, as Ch 1 of Pt 1 of the Health Act 2006, which banned smoking in enclosed public places and workplaces, applied to prisons and, in particular, to state prisons for which the Crown was responsible. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant appealed against the refusal of relief from sanctions, its appeal against an earlier order having been struck out, as it had failed to comply with an 'unless order' of the court. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the appeal, held, inter alia, that the breach had been serious and significant, no explanation the claimant had given as to why the default had occurred constituted a good reason and the judge had not erred in having considered the merits of the appeal. 

Practice – Preliminary point of law. An arbitral tribunal had found in favour of the defendants that the claimant had breached its obligation to deliver goods, under the terms of a contract, which was governed by the Laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran, with the seat of the arbitration in London. The claimant challenged the award on the grounds of jurisdiction and serious irregularity. The defendants applied for certain matters to be determined as preliminary issues. The Commercial Court held that it was just and convenient, on case management grounds, to order a trial of the suggested preliminary issues, save for one issue, which had to go to trial. 

European Union – Intellectual property rights. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 5(2)(b) and 6 of Directive (EC) 2001/29 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society). The request had been made in proceedings between Copydan Båndkopi and Nokia Danmark A/S concerning the payment of the levy intended to finance the fair compensation payable under the exception to the reproduction right provided for in art 5(2)(b) of that directive. 

Shipping – Cargo. The claimants brought proceedings against the defendant carrier, contending that cargoes of coffee had become partly spoiled by water during their carriage from Columbia to Germany. The Mercantile Court held that, on the evidence, the claimants would succeed. The carrier had not made good its contention that no lining with paper or card could have prevented the damage, and had not established that it had adopted a sound system to prevent the spoiling of the cargo. 

European Union – Companies. The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Court gave an advisory opinion to the Reykjavík District Court following a request by that court concerning the interpretation of art 30(1) of Directive (EC) 2001/24 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions) in proceedings between Landsbanki Islands hf. and Merrill Lynch International Ltd.