Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant local planning authority applied to quash the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, allowing the second defendant's appeal against its deemed refusal of development permission. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the inspector had erred in failing to consider the views of the core strategy inspector's contrary conclusion as to housing land supply. It refused to exercise its discretion not to quash the decision, given the serious errors of law. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant of planning permission for the installation of a wind turbine. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimants' criticisms as to the enforceability of a condition on the noise level could not be sustained. Further, there was no public policy basis upon which the parties' settlement ought not to be enforced and, in any event, the claimants lacked standing, having sold their neighbouring property. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG (Simba) for annulment of the decision by the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) relating to cancellation proceedings between Simba and Seven Towns Ltd in respect of the registration by the latter company of a three-dimensional sign as a Community trade mark. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection considered an application by a health provider to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration from AB, who had been unconscious since 2005 with no prospect of recovery. The court held that it was in AB's best interests for artificial nutrition and hydration to be withdrawn. 

Medical practitioner – Regulatory body. The respondent surgeon's application for registration as a specialist in trauma and orthopaedic surgery was refused by the appellant General Medical Council's (GMC) registration appeal panel (the panel). The county court judge allowed the respondent's appeal and identified what it determined to be legal errors in the panel's decision. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the GMC's appeal in part, held that, with one exception, the legal errors that the judge had identified had not been errors at all. Subject to that point, the panel had correctly directed itself in law. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. In considering cost and delay in two cases, the Court of Protection expressed the view that the case management provisions in the Court of Protection Rules had proved inadequate on their own to secure the necessary changes in practice. 

Limitation of action – When time begins to run. The police constabulary had settled a claim for personal injury and sought a contribution from the local authority. The judge found that the contribution proceedings were statute barred under s 10(4) of the Limitation Act 1980 and dismissed the claim. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the constabulary's appeal on the basis that the case had fallen within s 10(4) of the Act, and not s 10(3) as the constabulary contended. On the correct interpretation of s 10(4), time had started to run from settlement of the damages, and not from settlement as to costs, with the result that the contribution proceedings had been statute barred. 

Trade mark – Opposition to registration. The Chancery Division considered an appeal against a decision of the Hearing Officer in a dispute concerning the word DALSOUPLE used as a trade mark. The court held that, among other things, where consent to use a word was given, that consent did not have to be in writing and had to be expressed so that an intention to renounce the consenter's rights was unequivocally demonstrated. In the circumstances, the appellant's appeal was dismissed. 

Employment – Victimisation. The employment tribunal dismissed the employee's claims of detrimental treatment on grounds of protected disclosure, under s 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, among other things. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal, held that it had not been persuaded that any error of law had been made out. 

Employment – Transfer of trade, business or undertaking. The third respondent, who was employed by the second respondent, carried out harassment of the employee before and after her transfer to the first respondent. The employment tribunal held, among other things, that the second respondent was vicariously liable for the third respondent's acts while the employee was employed by it, but not after her transfer. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, among other things, held that the employee's appeal against the tribunal's failure to hold the first respondent liable for the acts of harassment committed by the third respondent had to be allowed.