Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Enforcement notice. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against the dismissal of a claim for judicial review of the respondent local planning authority's decision to use its powers, under s 178 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to clear agricultural land located in the Green Belt of caravans occupied by the appellant and family members, which had been stationed there in breach of planning controls since 2009. Among other things, the appellant had failed to show that it had been irrational for the authority to have decided that enough was enough and that the time had arrived at which it would be reasonable and proportionate, in light of all relevant interests, to proceed to implement the enforcement notice, the validity of which had been upheld on appeal to the Secretary of State.

Immigration – Leave to enter. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant Algerian national's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decisions revoking his leave to enter and detaining him immediately after an interview concerning his proposed marriage to a Slovakian national resident in the United Kingdom. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division held the claimant in a personal injury action was entitled to summary judgment against the second defendant in that she had had a contract with the second defendant which had been breached and that breach had caused her injuries. 

Terrorism – Prevention of. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed in part an appeal by the Treasury against the judge's determination of a preliminary issue regarding the claimant bank's entitlement to claim directly against the Treasury for the loss of earnings suffered by another bank of which the claimant was a 60% shareholder (PIB). PIB had standing to bring its own claim pursuant to s 63 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 and s 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Further, the claimant had no standing to bring the claim as a matter of Strasbourg case law. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Administrative Court allowed the claimant local planning authority's application for an order quashing the decision of an inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State to permit development of a synagogue. The inspector had not given the required considerable importance and weight to the finding of harm to the synagogue, and its features of special architectural and historic interest or great weight to the conservation of the synagogue. 

Occupier's liability – Visitor. The Court of Appeal Civil Division dismissed the defendant's appeal against a finding of a recorder that the claimant's accident had been caused by the defendant's breach of duty of care and/or breach of s 2 of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957. 

Practice – Civil litigation. The Commercial Court dismissed an application by the owners of a vessel for relief from sanctions (initially under CPR 3.9) and for an extension of time to comply with an unless order to deliver up an electronic archive in respect of a claim brought against the defendant war risk underwriters, following an explosion on a vessel, which had been struck out for non-compliance with the order. The court found that the owners' story about their inability to hand over the archive was a fabrication and that, on a proper analysis, what the owners were really seeking (as reflected by their amended application notice) was a variation of the order to substitute for the absolute obligation to disclose the archive, in other words an application under CPR 3.1(7). The court ruled that there could be no question of any relief against sanctions in circumstances where breach of the unless order had not been remedied and there was no basis for a variation or revocation of the order or for relief from sanctions applying the 'Denton' three-staged test. Accordingly, the claim remained struck out. 

Employment – Contract of employment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the Secretary of State's appeal, held that, in considering a claimant's employment status, the ultimate question had to be the nature of the relationship during the period that the work was being done. However, it did not follow that the absence of mutuality of obligation outside that period might not influence, or shed light on, the character of the relationship within it. Its relevance would depend on the particular facts of the case, but to exclude consideration of it in limine ran counter to the repeated message of the authorities that it was necessary to consider all the circumstances. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appellant Pakistani national's appeal concerning the respondent Secretary of State's refusal of his application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrant, as she was not satisfied that the English language proficiency requirement in the Immigration Rules had been met. Whatever might have been the subjective intention of the Secretary of State in drafting the relevant 'evidential flexibility policy', it was not accepted that it could be read as if circumscribed by para 245AA of the Immigration Rules. 

Landlord and tenant – Repair. The Chancery Division allowed the claim of the tenant art gallery concerning works carried out by the defendant landlord on the building where the gallery was situated. The court held that, among other things, the landlord had not acted reasonably in exercising its right to build combined with its scaffolding rights under the terms of the lease and had thereby been in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment. In the circumstances, the tenant was entitled to damages.