Latest Cases

Feeds

Hunter v Regulas

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant failed to enter a witness statement in time for statements to be exchanged and nevertheless sought to adduce the witness statement seeking relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9. The court was prepared to admit certain parts of the witness statement but not others as it would cause prejudice to the defendant. 

R (on the application of Savage) v Mansfield District Council

Town and country planning – Planning permission. The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent local planning authority's grant of outline planning permission to a developer where the relevant site was near breeding populations of woodlark and nightjar. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, hearing the case at first instance, dismissed the application. It held, inter alia, that the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, SI 2010/490, supplemented by the National Planning Policy Framework, did not require a planning authority to undertake a 'shadow assessment' or other quasi-appropriate assessment in respect of sites which were not proposed Special Protection Areas (pSPA). In the present case, the proposed site was not a pSPA, there had been no duty to consult Natural England and the advice given by that body had been no more than a material consideration to have been taken into account. 

European Council and others v Czech Republic

European Union – Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) allowed the appeal brought by the European Council, the European Commission and the European Parliament against a judgment of the General Court of the European Union in which the General Court had granted the application by a Netherlands environment association and another for annulment of a decision of the European Commission refusing to carry out internal review of a decision it had taken pursuant to art 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006. However, the Court decided that, in giving final judgment on the matter, although the appeal was well founded, neither of the pleas of the action lodged by the environment association and the other foundation were well founded and accordingly, their action would be dismissed. 

*The Law Society of England & Wales v Shah

Solicitor – Disciplinary proceedings. The claimant Law Society applied for an injunction making permanent prohibitions against the defendant, S, to prevent him holding himself out as a solicitor or becoming involved with legal work. The Chancery Division held that while, on the evidence, the Law Society could not invoke the court's supervisory jurisdiction over S to obtain the relief that it sought, the relief sought by the Law Society would be granted in the exercise of the court's power under s 41(4)(c) of the Legal Services Act 2007. 

Webber v Department for Education

Education – Teacher. The appellant appealed against a determination by the Deputy Pensions Ombudsman (the DPO), dismissing his complaint against the respondent Department for Education in relation to the recovery of an overpayment of his pension under the Teachers' Pension Scheme. The Chancery Division held, inter alia, that, on the DPO's factual findings, her conclusion that the defence of change of position had been unavailable to the appellant could not be faulted. However, he had had a limitation defence for the recovery of any overpayments which had been made more than six years before the relevant date when the limitation period was to be regarded as having stopped and, to that extent, the appeal would be allowed. 

Michalik v Circuit Court in Katowice, Poland

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve the remaining four months and 13 days of a six-month sentence for assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the appellant had not served his sentence by virtue of being on a six-hour tag curfew. However, it would be disproportionate to return him, particularly given the amount of time outstanding. 

SJ v RA

Divorce – Financial provision. The instant case was the final hearing of an application by the wife for a full range of financial remedies following her divorce from the husband after 43 years of marriage. Following a computation of the assets, the court divided the assets on a clean break basis, having regard to the factors in s 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. 

Hilton and others v D IV LLP and others

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Production of documents. The claimant investors issued proceedings, seeking a declaration that they were entitled to inspect and copy documents as of right on a true construction of the deeds governing the affairs of the defendant limited liability partnerships (LLP). The Chancery Division, in allowing the claim, held that, properly construed, a clause of the deeds created an express and unqualified right to inspect the books and records of the LLP concerned in favour of the members of the LLP concerned and their authorised representatives. There was no reason to exercise the discretion to refuse relief. 

Chapman v Kawash

Divorce – Financial provision. A wife began proceedings for divorce and a financial remedy order. She suspected that her husband had property in Jordan and asked him for disclosure. He denied the allegation and a consent order on financial provision was granted. The wife discovered later that the husband did have property in Jordan. She applied for permission to appeal against a consent order. The Family Division, in allowing the application, held that, whilst non-disclosure did not mean that a consent order previously granted should be set aside, in the present case, there was evidence of potentially significant non-disclosure and the wife's appeal had a realistic prospect of success. 

Air Berlin plc & Co. Luftverkehrs KG v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbande - Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e. V.

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled, inter alia, that the second sentence of art 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community) should be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a computerised booking system such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the final price to be paid had to be indicated whenever the prices of air services were shown, including when they were shown for the first time. 

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results

Chair’s Column

Feature image

Global gatherings

The Chair of the Bar reports back

Sponsored

Partner Logo

Latest Cases

Most Viewed