Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant of planning permission to erect a wind turbine to the interested party. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the authority had not made information available to allow effective participation in democratic decision-making and could not demonstrate that it would inevitably have come to the same conclusion. Further, the authority had been wrong to assume that there had been a financial involvement, allowing a higher noise level. 

European Union – Reference to European court. The present proceedings arose from two claims for judicial review, the formal object of which was the intention and obligation of the defendant Secretary of State to implement European Parliament and Council Directive (EU) 2014/40. The parties had agreed a series of proposed questions for referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union and a number of organisations wished to be categorised as parties. The Administrative Court held that the draft reference would be amended to make it expressly clear that the court considered the organisations to be parties for the purposes of their participation. 

European Union – Employment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Council Directive (EEC) 80/987 (relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer), as amended. The request had been made in proceedings between the applicant and the Netherlands Management Board of the Employee Insurance Schemes Implementing Body concerning the latter's refusal to pay the applicant an insolvency benefit on the ground that he was a third-country national who was not legally resident in the Netherlands. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed an action brought by Kaatsu Japan Co. Ltd (Kaatsu) against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to an application by Kaatsu for registration of the word sign 'KAATSU' as a Community trade mark. 

Family proceedings – Jurisdiction. In a case where the mother and father and child, M, moved to Israel, the court had to decide on M's place of habitual residence. The Family Division held that it was plain to see that M was unable to settle and integrate into Israeli life and it would be wholly inimical to M's best interest to return to Israel. 

Solicitor – Merger of firms of solicitors. The claimant solicitors' firm sought judicial review of the defendant Legal Ombudsman's decision that it was responsible for a complaint made against another firm, as its successor. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant was 'an authorised person', under s 128(1) of the Legal Services Act 2007, over which the Legal Ombudsman had jurisdiction. That was on the basis that 'person', under s 132(2) of the Act, was not limited to an individual human being. Accordingly, the claimant, due to the transfer of the other firm's business, was the proper respondent to the complaint. 

Will – Family provision. The claimant brought a claim in respect of her deceased mother's estate, after she was excluded from her mother's will. The issue was whether she had a claim on the basis of proprietary estoppel or under the under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the claim, held that, on the facts, any mention of inheritance had not been intended to be taken seriously or been such that might reasonably have been expected to have been relied on by the claimant. Further, taking into account all the factors under s 3 of the Act, the value judgment was that the claimant's conduct outweighed all of the factors in her favour and her claim under the act had to fail. 

Solicitor – Negligence. The defendant firm of solicitors conceded that its conduct in the course of acting for the claimants in a property transaction had been negligent, but disputed that its negligence had caused any loss beyond the nominal sum of £250 in circumstances where the claimants had mitigated their loss. The Chancery Division held that the claimants loss had been eradicated by mitigation and that their was no evidence to justify an award of damages other than or in excess of £250. 

Damages – Assessment. The defendants were members of the claimant organisation, which represented and provided services to the removal and storage industry. When their membership lapsed, they failed to remove comments suggesting that they were still members. The claimant obtained summary judgment against the defendants. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court made rulings on the basis by which damages were to be awarded. 

Public procurement – Public contracts. In a public procurement case relating to a proposed single supplier framework agreement for media planning and buying services, the claimant, as the losing tenderer issued proceedings within 30 days of being informed of its failure to win contract, under the Public Contract Regulations. That led to a suspension on the placing of the contract with the successful tenderer. The defendant as contracting authority applied to lift the statutory suspension so that it could place the contract with the successful tenderer. The Technology and Construction Court lifted the suspension as it found that there was no serious issue to be tried.