Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant Lee Valley Regional Park Authority challenged the defendant local planning authority's decision to grant the interested party planning permission. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, accepted the claimant's submissions that the authority had misinterpreted Green Belt policy in the National Planning Policy Framework in an unlawful manner, particularly with reference to the concepts of openness and previously developed land. Further, the development had not been in accord with the development plan. 

Human rights – Right to respect for family and private life. Further to its previous judgment (see [2014] All ER (D) 156 (Dec)), the Investigatory Powers Tribunal declared that, prior to the disclosure that had been made and referred to in the previous judgment and the present judgment, the regime governing the soliciting, receiving, storing and transmitting by United Kingdom authorities of private communications of individuals located in the UK, which had been obtained by United States authorities pursuant to US National Security Agency programmes, had contravened arts 8 or 10 of the Convention, but at the present time complied. 

Constitutional law – Diplomatic privilege. The claimant domestic workers issued proceedings in the employment tribunal against the defendant Saudi diplomatic agent and his wife. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) upheld the defendants' claim to diplomatic immunity, but held that service had been validly effected. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimants' appeal and the defendants' cross-appeal, held that, on the proper construction of art 31(1)(c) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961, the EAT had been right to uphold the defendants' claim to diplomatic immunity. Further, service at the defendants' private residence by post had constituted good service. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant applied to quash the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, refusing the claimant's appeal to grant planning permission for a wind energy development. The Planning Court, in allowing the application, held that the inspector had proceeded on the basis of an error of fact, which had played a material part in the decision she had reached. That had given rise to unfairness to the claimant and amounted to an error of law. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. Following a series of catalogue of errors, omissions, delays and serial breaches of court orders in respect of a very young child, DS, who had been placed in foster care the authority agreed to pay damages: (i) to DS in the sum of £12,000; (ii) to the mother in the sum of £4,000; and (iii) to pay a sum of £1000 to the maternal grandparents to assist them in their care of DS. The basis of the award was arts 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed Kenzo Tsujimoto's appeal against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market relating to his application for registration of the word sign 'KENZO' as a Community trade mark. In dismissing the appeal, the General Court ruled that there was a risk that the mark applied for would take unfair advantage of the reputation of an earlier KENZO mark. 

Costs – Order for costs. Capita Translation and Interpreting Ltd had a contract with the Secretary of State to provide interpreters for court and tribunal hearings. The court had booked two interpreters for an application for leave to oppose an adoption, but the interpreters were not provided and the hearing was adjourned. The local authority sought recovery of its costs of that hearing against Capita. The Family Court granted the application and held that Capita had failed to discharge its obligations under the contract with the Secretary of State and, where there had been a background of serial failures by Capita in the proceedings, it was just for the company to pay the authority's costs. 

Constitutional law – Foreign sovereign state. The appeals concerned whether a member of the service staff of a foreign diplomatic mission to the United Kingdom could bring proceedings in the UK against the employer state to assert employment rights or whether such a claim was barred by state immunity. In particular, whether provisions of the State Immunity Act 1978 (the SIA) were compatible with art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and art 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the EU Charter). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held, inter alia, that, on the application to the claimants' claims: (i) s 16(1)(a) of the SIA infringed art 6 of the Convention; (ii) s 4(2)(b) of the SIA infringed arts 6 and 14 of the Convention; and (iii) ss 4(2)(b) and 16(1)(a) of the SIA, in their application to those parts of the claims which fell within the scope of EU law, infringed art 47 of the EU Charter. 

Criminal law – Trial. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal against his conviction for dangerous driving and taking a conveyance without authority, in circumstances where the prosecution's case, based on DNA evidence, that the defendant had been the driver of the vehicle had been very strong indeed. 

Police – Powers. The present appeal concerned the question of the circumstances in which DNA profiles obtained by the police in the exercise of their criminal law enforcement functions could, without the consent of the data subject, be put to uses which were remote from the field of criminal law enforcement. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, construed s 22 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1985 as meaning that, if the police considered that it was necessary to retain DNA material obtained under Pt II of PACE for criminal law enforcement purposes, they could not use it for any other purpose.