Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Development. The claimant applied to quash the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State to grant a certificate of lawful use. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that a proper interpretation of Class F of Pt 3 of Sch 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, SI 1995/418, permitted a change from a single planning unit to up to three planning units. Accordingly, the inspector had applied the law correctly in concluding that functional and physical separation had been required by the clear words of the Order. 

National Health Service – Medical records. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Health Service Commissioner's decision, declining to investigate her complaint against the interested party's hospital, on the basis that it was unlawful as her complaint had been incorrectly interpreted. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the gravamen of the claimant's complaint against the interested party had been that it had failed to comply with its statutory obligations and provide copy documentation. At no stage had the claimant made it clear that she had wanted the defendant to investigate the interested party's excuses or explanations, or any underlying systemic failures. 

Divorce – Appeal. Post divorce, the husband had refused an open offer of settlement from the wife. As a result, the judge in effect dismissed his application for financial remedy. The husband sought permission to appeal and that was refused on the basis that his appeal had no reasonable prospect of success. 

Employment – Contract of service. The claimant brought proceedings against his former employers. The principal issues were whether, under his contract of employment, he had become, or had been entitled to become, a member of the first defendant company and, if so, on what terms as to profit share and capital interest. The Chancery Division made a number of rulings, but held that further submissions were required regarding the effects of s 4(4) of the Limited Liability Partnership Act 2000 on the case. 

Marine insurance – Perils insured against. A vessel owned by the first claimant company (the owners) was damaged by pirates and could not be repaired. The Commercial Court held that vessel was a constructive total loss, and that the owners were entitled to claim an indemnity regarding it. 

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. 

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. 

Divorce – Financial proceedings. Following the divorce of the parties, the Family Division made orders as to the division of matrimonial property. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Lithuania to serve the balance of a sentence amounting to three years and nine months imposed for offences committed between April 2003 and July 2007. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that, on all the facts, notwithstanding the seriousness of the original offending, now fairly ancient, and bearing in mind that the appellant had already served approximately 14 months' imprisonment, it would be disproportionate in all the circumstances to return him, in particular, having regard to his daughter's very rare congenital heart disease. 

Town and country planning – Development. The appellant appealed against the decision of the inspector appointed by the defendant Secretary of State, affirming the refusal of a certificate of lawfulness of existing use or development on the basis that he was deprived of the four year limitation period in s 171B(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 due to his deliberate concealment. The Planning Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the principle laid down in Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another ([2011] 4 All ER 851) had not been replaced by ss 171BA to 171BC of the Act and the inspector had not failed to apply that principle correctly.