Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant local planning authority applied to quash the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, holding that administrative fees it had claimed for monitoring obligations agreed under s 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 did not comply with reg 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, SI 2010/948. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the inspector had been entitled to conclude that a contribution to the administration and monitoring costs had not been 'necessary' to make the development acceptable in planning terms. Further, the inspector had given adequate reasons. 

Pension – Retirement benefit schemes. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the appeal by the taxpayer against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal to strike out the taxpayer's appeal against a discovery assessment made by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners in respect of a contribution of assets made by the taxpayer's employer to a retirement benefits scheme on behalf of the taxpayer. The tribunal decided that the FTT had been correct in finding that the taxpayer's challenge based on s 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 Act and art 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights had no real prospect of success. 

Employment – Contract for services. The claimant colorectal, laparoscopic and general surgeon was prohibited from carrying out all forms of surgery at the defendant NHS Trust. He issued proceedings for breach of contract. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the claim, held that his submission that he should not have been excluded from all surgery was unrealistic. The NHS Trust had been able to conclude that there had been no alternatives to exclusion and it had been entitled to maintain the exclusion. Further, the NHS Trust had been entitled not to permit the claimant to return to work, given the breakdown in the relationship and absent suitable supervision. 

Costs – Order for costs. The claimant brought a claim for the alleged infringement by the defendants of the copyright in a film. The claimant applied to amend the particulars of claim, which was criticised by the defendants as being inadequate. A judge, dismissing the application, held that the claimant had behaved unreasonably in that the particulars of claim was wholly inadequate. The defendants sought their costs, which exceeded the £3,000 cap for applications in the Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court. The Chancery Division held that costs awarded against an unreasonable party, pursuant to CPR 63.26(2) were not free of the stage caps on costs set out in Tables A and B of Practice Direction 45. A single stage cap of £3,000 applied to all the defendants in relation to the costs of the application. 

Insurance – Liability insurance. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that professional indemnity insurers were obliged to indemnify solicitors who were liable to reimburse the loans made to their clients in order to defray the disbursements made by those clients. Obligations arising out of such loans were essentially part and parcel of the obligations assumed by a solicitor in respect of his professional duties to his client, rather than obligations personal to the solicitor. They were inherently part of his professional practice and were assumed, as an essential part of his duty was to advise the client as to the likelihood of success in the intended litigation. 

Criminal law – Proceeds of crime. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed an appeal by the defendant investment banker against his conviction for money laundering in respect of funds obtained by a corrupt Nigerian politician. The court held, among other things, that the judge had not erred in his treatment of the defendant's previous acquittal. 

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. 

Employment – Dismissal. The claimant was absent from his work for a fortnight. On his return, the defendant employer gave him a letter expressing concerns and, shortly afterwards, terminated his employment. The Mauritian Industrial Court allowed the claimant's claim for unfair dismissal, but it was substantially overturned by the Supreme Court on appeal. The Privy Council held that the Supreme Court had not erred in its approach to the applicable law, and dismissed the claimant's appeal. 

Sentence – Suspended sentence. The offender had been given a suspended sentence for an offence of rape, the recorder having used his power under s 125(7) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to depart from the sentencing guideline in order to deal with a mentally disordered offender in the manner that he thought fit in the circumstances. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that, although the sentence had been unduly lenient at the time it was passed, it was not in the public interest that the sentence should be disturbed and no action would be taken, in circumstances where the offender had made a fully committed start to the suspended sentence order. 

Building contract – Subcontractors. The claimant company appointed the defendant company, HEC, to provide assistance in the development of a landfill site. A dispute arose as to which of the parties bore the contractual risk of increased costs associated with the enhancement of the design beyond the original delivery plan. The Technology and Construction Court held that it was appropriate to consider the making of declarations in the case, and made rulings concerning HEC's contractual obligations.