Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Appeal to Minister against refusal of permission for development. The claimant challenged the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State to grant the third defendant conditional planning permission for the construction of a new crematorium and associated development. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the inspector had not been unreasonable or irrational in the application of the Secretary of State's published criteria in determining that the appeal should be decided under the written representations procedure. Further, absent a finding by the inspector that the proposal gave rise to significant or conspicuous adverse effects, he had not been obliged to consider alternative sites. 

Town and country planning – Development plan. The claimant applied, under s 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, to quash the local plan adopted by the first defendant local planning authority. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the authority and the inspector appointed by the second defendant Secretary of State had acted lawfully in concluding that the plan had provided sufficient protection for greater horseshoe bats, and the inspector's reasons had been adequate and intelligible. Further, although the authority had failed to expressly invite the public to comment on the strategic environmental assessment and its addendum, the claimant's interests had not been substantially prejudiced. 

Practice – Litigation in person. The present proceedings concerned issues arising out the father's status as a litigant in person. The Family Court held that, where a party was unrepresented and 'unable to examine or cross-examine a witness effectively,' the court had a duty to assist that party, under s 31G(6) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. Where the court was satisfied that it was not 'appropriate' for the judge to put questions to an alleged victim, the court had to arrange for a legal representative to be appointed to put those questions. Further, the court might direct that the costs of such a representative be borne by Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service. 

Natural justice – Duty to act fairly. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision to designate its entire borough for both additional licensing of houses in multiple occupation and selective licensing of private rented sector properties for a period of five years. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that there had been a failure to consult potentially interested parties outside the borough and that the period of consultation had lasted much less that the ten-week period required to satisfy the conditions set out in the Secretary of State's general approval issued in April 2010. Accordingly, the court's discretion would be exercised in favour of granting relief. 

Natural justice – Duty to act fairly. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision of the defendant General Dental Council to set its annual retention fee on the basis that there had been a failure to properly consult and re-consult after a fundamental change of position. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the consultation had not been transparent, as it had not explained the position in clear and accessible terms, enabling consultees to provide intelligent and informed responses. However, it had not been conspicuously unfair not to re-consult, as there had not been a fundamental change. 

Natural Justice – Duty to act fairly. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision to close a school and merge it with another. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the authority had failed to: (i) set out in the consultation document the alternatives considered and the reasons why they had been discounted; (ii) address the requirement that standards in the new school would be, at least, equivalent to those at the school; (iii) provide a community impact assessment with the consultation document; and (iv) provide the Regional Assembly members with the relevant documents. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The proceedings concerned an application by the defendant to discharge a worldwide freezing order which had been made against him. The Chancery Division declined, in the circumstances, to discharge the injunction. It held, inter alia, that, although there had been some relevant non-disclosure, putting the non-disclosure against the material actually deployed, and the disclosure made, it would be wrong to discharge the injunction. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant local planning authority sought judicial review of the defendant adjoining local planning authority's grant of planning permission to the interested party for a substantial urban extension of Green Belt land. The Administrative Court found four of the claimant's grounds of challenge to be wholly unarguable and gave its reasons for dismissing the remaining six grounds. 

Local authority – Residential care home. The claimant association of independent care home operators sought judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision setting the figure it was prepared to pay to providers. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the presence of an inexplicable weighting of average staff to bed ratio within the mathematical model showed it to be a matter of fact which no reasonable decision-taker could properly take into account. Further, the taking of top-up fees into account in the cost analysis did not pay due regard to actual cost and amounted to a significant error in the decision-making process. 

Immigration – Deportation. The respondent Secretary of State had served a deportation order on the appellant Pakistani national. During the appellant's submissions in the present appeal, it was said that there had been a fourth child born to him and his wife since the original determination was made. No assessment by any tribunal by reference to any of the Immigration Rules had dealt with that matter. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State accepted, and the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ordered, that the matter should be re-determined by the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber).