Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Permission for development. A planning inspector granted the appellant company planning permission for a four-turbine wind farm. The judge quashed that decision and the appellant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had been correct in her conclusion that Parliament's intention in enacting s 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 had been that decision-makers should give 'considerable importance and weight' to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings when carrying out the required balancing exercise and that the inspector had not done so. 

Arbitration – Award. The Chancery Division dismissed the claimant landlords' appeal against an award of an adjudicator in a rent review arbitration. On the facts, the claimants had failed to establish that there had been serious irregularities in the arbitrator's decision, within the meaning of s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996. 

Police – Powers. The Divisional Court dismissed the claimant's judicial review challenge to his detention pursuant to para 2(1) of Sch 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The purpose of the claimant's detention had fallen within Sch 7 to the Act and the decision to exercise that power had been a proportionate measure in the circumstances. 

Misrepresentation – Fraudulent misrepresentation. The Chancery Division considered a claim regarding the purchase of properties in London. The claimants submitted that the defendant had made numerous misrepresentations, inducing them into assisting her in the purchase of property in London. The court held that, among other things, the claimant had not made the misrepresentations. The defendant's counterclaim would succeed in part. 

Libel and slander – Publication. Following her conviction for harassment the claimant brought a libel action against the defendant publisher for words published in an online article which was later taken down. When the defendant applied to strike out the action, the Queen's Bench Division allowed the claim on the basis that the words were not capable of amounting to defamation and, in any event, there was nothing of value to the claimant which she could hope to achieve by a reformulation of her claim in the action to embrace a claim based on the parts of the article which purported to report the allegations of harassment. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Pakistani national arrived in the United Kingdom as a spouse of a person settled and present in the UK. The defendant Home Secretary made two consecutive decisions permitting him to remain on a limited basis. The claimant overstayed his permission by two years and eight months. He made a further application for leave to remain, which the Secretary of State refused. The claimant applied for judicial review of that decision. Dismissing the claim, the Administrative Court held that it was settled law that considerations under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights were embedded in the Immigration Rules such that if the Secretary of State applied those Rules then, ordinarily, art 8 considerations would have been fully catered for. In the instant case, no good arguable grounds had been advanced that there had been factors particular to the claimant that had not been capable of being assessed from within the existing framework of Rules and which therefore needed to be assessed outside of the Rules. Further, the Secretary of State had taken into account all of the factors and matters which had been relevant to the claimant. Finally, there had been no error of law in the approach adopted by the Secretary of State to the question of whether there had been insurmountable obstacles to relocation. 

Immigration – Deportation. The claimant Afghan national applied for asylum in the United Kingdom. That application was refused and he appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the FTT). Permission to appeal to the defendant Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT) was refused by both the FTT and the UT. The claimant brought a claim for judicial review of the UT's decision. The High Court refused to grant a stay on his removal pending consideration of that claim and he was removed to Afghanistan. Subsequently, the claimant's judicial review application was granted. The claimant applied for an order that the interested party Secretary of State should take all reasonable steps to secure his return to the UK (the order). The Administrative Court ruled that that application had been premature. The court would not make the order at the present time, but would give the claimant permission to restore the instant application if: (i) the UT found that there had been an error of law and that it would be desirable to admit further evidence from the claimant; or (ii) the UT found merit in the claimant's argument that his right of appeal as a matter of law would be jeopardised by his absence from the UK. 

Limitation of action – Period of limitation. The Supreme Court held that a stranger to a trust who was liable to account on the grounds of dishonest assistance in a breach of trust or knowing receipt of trust assets was not a trustee for the purposes of s 21(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1980. The court further held that an action 'in respect of' any fraud or fraudulent breach of trust to which the trustee was a party or privy did not include an action against a party which was not itself a trustee. 

Easement – Right of way. The claimant local authority sought an injunction, requiring the defendant to re-open a passageway the subject of its right of way. The judge granted the injunction, having found that two distinct groups benefited from the right of way and that one group had abandoned its right to the passageway. The parties appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that the judge had erred in concluding that there had been a partial abandonment of a right of way by reference to different classes of potential users. Further, mere non-use had been incapable of supporting a conclusion that the right of way had been abandoned for all time. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The judge requested a district court in the Czech Republic to assume jurisdiction in relation to care proceedings concerning a 19-month-old boy in accordance with art 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003. The local authority and the children's guardian appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that, having regard to its conclusions about the benefits of judicial continuity and the judge's erroneous formulation of legal policy, the preliminary issue as to art 15 of the Regulation should have been decided in favour of the English court retaining jurisdiction.