Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings, seeking to quash the planning permission granted by the defendant minerals planning authority to a company for temporary permission for exploration and appraisal concerning an existing hydrocarbon lateral borehole. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the authority had determined the merits after a full discussion and a thorough exploration of the issues raised. The claimant's case failed, as its legal arguments neither addressed nor reflected the relevant principles and the authority had not been misled. 

Building – Adjudication. The claimant applied for summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator's decision that the defendant pay it a sum. The Technology and Construction Court, in allowing the claim, held that the adjudicator had been validly appointed. Further, if the adjudicator had considered sums arising under different contracts, it was irrelevant, as the sums had been included in the adjudication notice. He had answered the question that had been referred to him and his decision, right or wrong, could not be impugned on an application for enforcement. 

Competition – Rules on competition. In the course of proceedings between FNV Kunsten Informatie en Media, a trade union, and the Netherlands concerning the validity of a reflection document published by the Netherlands Competition Authority, the Court of Justice of the European Union had to consider whether the provision of a collective labour agreement setting minimum fees for the supply of independent services was excluded from the scope of art 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). 

Arbitration – Costs. The proceedings concerned arbitration proceedings in the context of wind energy development between German and Indian companies. The proceedings had been ongoing for some years in Indian and English courts. Following a judgment in the English court, the defendant company applied for its reserved costs. The claimants opposed the application contending, among, other things, that it was entitled to a mandatory stay pursuant to s 9(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996 or pursuant to the court's inherent jurisdiction. The Commercial Court held that, where the relevant legal proceedings concerned the English arbitration action and not the application for costs, s 9 of the Act did not apply in the way contended by the claimants. The defendant was entitled to its costs. 

Natural justice – Duty to act fairly. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant's decision to cease provision of in-patient beds at a hospital. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the defendant had not erred in law in the manner in which it had approached its statutory obligations to consult or in the conclusion it had reached that consultation over the prosed change had neither been required nor appropriate. Further, procedural fairness had not required the imposition of a common law obligation to consult. 

Nationality – British nationality. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decisions, refusing them naturalisation as British citizens, as they were not of good character, given their deception in the asylum process. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the applications, held that the Secretary of State had been bound to take into account the claimants' long history of deception as relevant to the issue of their good character. Further, whether any benefit was derived had little relevance to the central question of good character and they had derived benefits from their deception. 

Contract – Condition. The claimant dentist appealed against the judge's decision that the defendant was entitled to terminate their contract. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that the circumstances had not required a fresh notice of termination and that the word 'reasonable' in the contract should not be read in a restricted Wednesbury sense. The claimant was to be confined to his contractual, private law remedies and he had failed to show any goodwill as constituting a possession within the meaning of art 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. In the course of proceedings between the liquidator of a German company and the managing director of that company regarding the recovery of funds paid to one of that company's subsidiaries, the Court of Justice of the European Union considered, as a preliminary ruling, inter alia, whether the courts of the member state in the territory of which insolvency proceedings regarding a company's assets had been opened had jurisdiction, on the basis of art 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC)1346/2000 (on insolvency proceedings), to hear and determine an action such as that at issue in the main proceedings. 

Employment – Discrimination. The employee was engaged as a commission only salesman by the employer until his termination when he reached the age of 65. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) held that the employee's dismissal had been an act of unlawful age discrimination and it made an award for injury to feelings and holiday pay awards. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, allowing the employers' appeal, held that the tribunal had erred in concluding that the claimant was entitled to claim pay for holiday not taken over a 14-year period as a series of deductions from wages and was remitted. The tribunal had further erred in assessing the proper award for injury to feelings for an unlawfully age discriminatory dismissal. 

Criminal law – Indecent assault. The defendant appealed against his conviction for indecent assault on a male aged under 16 years, alleging that the verdict had been inconsistent with his acquittals for further child sex offences and that the judge had erred in giving a Watson direction (see R v Watson[1988] 1 All ER 897). The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the test for inconsistent verdicts was satisfied. Further, the circumstances of the case had not made it exceptional such as to require a Watson direction as a last resort.