Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision of the defendant local authority to grant planning permission and conservation area consent to redevelop a site within a conservation area. The Planning Court, in allowing the application, held that the planning officer's report had not applied the statutory presumption against the grant of permission in conservation area cases, laid down by s 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The mother of two girls had fled the family home with the children and residence orders had subsequently been made in her favour. The father applied for direct contact with the children. A fact-finding hearing led to the conclusion that the mother was in genuine fear of the father and that he had threatened to kill her. Assessments had placed her as being at high risk of 'honour' based violence. The original CAFCASS officer had recommended against direct contact between the father and children. The second officer recommended direct contact. The judge dismissed the father's application. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had been entitled to disagree with the recommendation of the second officer and had given reasons for his conclusion. Further, the judge had had in mind all the factors that had fallen to be balanced. 

Human rights – Right to respect for family and private life. Following revelations by Edward Snowden, the claimants asserted their belief that investigation of the respondents would show that their privacy had been unlawfully invaded. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal held that the law gave individuals an adequate indication as to the circumstances in which and the conditions upon which the intelligence services were entitled to resort to interception or to make use of intercept. Accordingly, as of the date of judgment, there was no contravention of arts 8 or 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by The Coca Cola Company (Coca-Cola) against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market concerning opposition proceedings between Coca-Cola and Modern Industrial & Trading Investment Co. Ltd (Mitico) regarding the application by Mitico for registration of a figurative sign in elegant script depicting the word: 'Master'. 

Divorce – Costs. Following the divorce of a very wealthy couple, the wife petitioned for financial remedy orders. The husband sought a departure from equality in terms of the share of the wealth that the wife should receive at the end of the marriage, due to the alleged fact that a lot of the personal wealth represented post-separation accrual. The Family Division held that the husband had indeed been personally responsible for a lot of post-separation accrual of wealth and the award was to reflect that fact. 

Negligence – Causation. During the course of his working life, the deceased was exposed to asbestos. He died of lung cancer and claims were brought against six defendants. The parties agreed that the deceased's exposure to asbestos over the course of his working life could be quantified and that the total exposed 'share' of the defendants was 35.2%. The issue was whether each defendant was liable in damages in full or for only a portion of the damages. The Queen's Bench Division, in ordering apportionment, rejected the claimant's submission that the common law had recognised an intermediate category of case which fell between the conventional approach and the principle in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd ([2002] 3 All ER 305). 

Practice – Settlement of action. In the course of complex litigation, an issue arose as to whether an agreement had been made between the parties in email correspondence. The Chancery Division held that a concluded agreement had been made, and it had not been conditional to further agreement. 

European Union – Public procurement. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled, inter alia, that arts 41(1), 43 and 45 of Directive 2004/18 had to be interpreted as meaning that, where the conditions for the application of the grounds for exclusion set out in art 45 of that directive were not fulfilled, that article did not preclude the adoption by a contracting authority of a decision not to award a contract for which a procurement procedure had been held and not to proceed with the definitive award of the contract to the sole tenderer remaining in contention to whom the contract had been provisionally awarded. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a ruling concerning the interpretation of art 6 of Directive (EC) 2008/115 and decided, inter alia, that the right to be heard in all proceedings, as it applied in the context of that directive and, in particular, art 6 thereof, had to be interpreted as extending to the right of an illegally staying third-country national to express, before the adoption of a return decision concerning him, his point of view on the legality of his stay, on the possible application of arts 5 and 6(2) to (5) of that directive and on the detailed arrangements for his return. 

European Union – Data protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling, deciding that the second indent of art 3(2) of Directive (EC) 95/46 (on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data) should be interpreted as meaning that the operation of a camera system, as a result of which a video recording of people was stored on a continuous recording device such as a hard disk drive, installed by an individual on his family home for the purposes of protecting the property, health and life of the home owners, but which also monitored a public space, did not amount to the processing of data in the course of a purely personal or household activity, for the purposes of that provision.