Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Planning authority. The claimant developer applied, under s 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, to quash or remit parts of the local plan core strategy adopted by the defendant local planning authority. The Planning Court held that the assessed need had never been expressed or included as part of the objectively assessed needs and the inspector had not dealt with affordable housing, contrary to the relevant policy. Further, there had been substantial non-compliance with the requirements of Sch 2 to the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, SI 2004/1633. 

Legal aid – Criminal cases. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant Lord Chancellor's proposal to restrict the number of duty provider work contracts to 527. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the application, determined the applicable standard of review was the conventional Wednesbury standard of judicial supervision. It then held that the Lord Chancellor had properly appreciated the position as to the investment finance which would be needed for firms to improve efficiency and restructure or consolidate to meet the challenge of the new system. Further, he had adequately considered consultation responses and the claimants' argument concerning art 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights was misconceived. 

Negligence – Information or advice. The claimant bank brought a claim in negligence against the defendant concerning non-statutory audit reports, which the defendant had provided to the Von Essen Hotels Limited Group and which the bank had relied on. The bank alleged that the defendant had owed it a duty of care in tort in relation to the contents of the reports and that it had been negligent. The Commercial Court, in allowing the defendant's application for summary judgment, held that a disclaimer in the reports took effect to negate any duty of care which could otherwise be owed by the defendant to Barclays and it was reasonable, in accordance with the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 Act. 

Valuation – Hereditament. The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) determined that the hereditament in issue, namely, a floor in an office building, would be entered in the local non-domestic rating list at a rateable value of £1. The Court of Appeal allowed the valuation officer's appeal. The valuation officer had to begin by asking whether the hereditament in its actual state was in a condition such as to make it reasonably fit for the occupation of a reasonably-minded tenant who would be likely to take it. The assumption required by para 2(1)(b) of Sch 6 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 required it to be assumed that the hereditament was in a state of reasonable repair, unless the repairs were uneconomic. 'Repairs' could only mean repairs as traditionally understood in the law of landlord and tenant. On the material date, the hereditament had been 'an office suite in disrepair', the works in question could fairly be described as repairs and it was not uneconomic to reinstate the building. 

Negligence – Contributory negligence. The pursuer had been seriously injured by a car when crossing the road. Her contributory negligence had been assessed at 90%. On appeal, her contributory negligence had been reduced to 70%. The Supreme Court held that the parties had been equally responsible for the damage suffered by the pursuer. Accordingly, the appeal would be allowed and 50% of the agreed damages would be awarded to the pursuer. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant applied to serve witness statements and to vacate a trial date upon the basis that time was needed to draft and serve the statements. The Queen's Bench Division, applying recent case law on CPR 39, held that the trial would not be vacated. However, the claimant would be allowed to serve witness statements, subject to an unless order. 

Order – Variation. The claimant had applied, under the Provision for Family and Dependants Act 1975, for reasonable financial provision out of his deceased father's estate. That application had been compromised and had resulted in a consent order, providing for payments to be made to cover the claimant's university education up to a specified date. The claimant applied to vary the order to extend the funding to cover a post graduate course outside of the specified date. The Chancery Division held that it had been inaccurately anticipated at the time of the order that the claimant would have completed his post-graduate education by a certain date. Taking all factors into account, it was an appropriate case for a variation of the order under s 6 of the Act. 

Negligence – Causation. The claimant suffered a brain tumour which was removed in due course. He brought a case in negligence against the relevant professionals who had first seen him in the Accident and Emergency Department as no one assessed him as warranting an immediate CT scan until mid August 2010, some seven months after he first presented. The Queen's Bench Division failed to find a breach of duty of care in regard to any of the medical professionals in charge of the claimant bearing in mind the pressures and manner of working of an A & E department. 

Road traffic – Driving licence. The claimant 78-year-old woman sought judicial review of the defendant court's rejection of her appeal against the DVLA's revocation of her driving licence. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that, in the light of a geriatric medicine specialist's evidence and absent a proper basis for rejecting it, the statutory test for revocation had not been met. The defendant had not been entitled, without more, to say that the specialist's expert medical evidence had not been indicative of the claimant's condition, as it had done. 

Employment – Practice and procedure. The employee and his colleague (the co-claimant) alleged unfair dismissal against their employer. The claims were dismissed. The employment tribunal dismissed the employee's application for an extension of the time to present his notice of appeal, in circumstances where he had not included the ET1 and ET3 forms of the co-claimant. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, dismissing the employee's appeal, ruled that the time limited by r 3(3) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993, SI 1993/2854, for serving the documents necessary for the proper institution of an appeal, started to run when an employment tribunal sent out a judgment and written reasons even though it had been wrongly addressed. Further, where two cases involving two different claimants were heard together, the two cases constituted the 'proceedings' for the purposes of r 3(1) of the Rules, and even if only one claimant proposed to appeal, r 3(1)(b) required the prospective appellant to either serve the ET1 form and ET3 forms in the co-claimant's case or give an explanation for not doing so. An appeal would not be properly instituted where neither step had been taken.