Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Planning Court dismissed the claimants' application for judicial review of the defendant local authority's grant of planning permission to the first interested party for a three-turbine electricity generation facility. None of the claimants' five grounds of challenge had been made out. 

Sentence – Aggravating features. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, provided guidance as to the proper sentencing approach and practice for considering the aggravating feature of prevalence. In applying that test, it had not been satisfactory to have taken account of prevalence in respect of the defendant's four drug convictions. Accordingly, the defendant's total sentence of four years and ten month's detention in a Young Offenders Institution would be reduced to four years. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Chancery Division made rulings in a case concerning the disclosure of information about the running of a trust to the claimant, who was the daughter of the testatrix. As disclosure had occurred, only costs remained. The court held that the costs of both parties would be paid out of the trust fund, in each case on the indemnity basis. It further considered the extent to which trustees could seek to claim privilege as against beneficiaries in relation to certain documents and what, if anything, the defendants would be entitled to recover if they had been ordered to pay the costs of the claimant. 

Damages – Personal injury. The Queen's Bench Division held that, taking into account the claimant's psychological state and loss of capacity, he was entitled to an award of damages for pain suffering and loss of amenity in the sum of £192,500 for the damage cause by the admitted negligence of a hospital. 

Pension – Pension scheme. The Chancery Division ruled, in respect of a proposed transfer of the assets and liabilities of the Halcrow pension scheme to a new occupational pension scheme, that reg 12(3) of the Occupational Pension Schemes (Preservation of Benefit) Regulations 1991, SI 1991/167, should not be construed in a way which required the actuary to consider the security of the benefits in the transferring and receiving scheme when giving a certificate under that regulation. Further, it held that there was no scope for a different construction or analysis of reg 12(3) where the transferring scheme was in winding up from the situation where it was ongoing. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled on an appeal and applications concerning the appropriate orders for costs following the respondent Secretary of State's withdrawal of her certification of human rights claims, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in EM (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2014] 2 All ER 192). 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Road traffic accident. PSLA of £2,785. The claimant suffered soft tissue injuries when his vehicle collided with the defendant's vehicle. The defendant was found liable. 

Town and country planning – Planning authority. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant developer's appeal against orders upholding the defendant local planning authority's adoption of the 'Tandridge Local Plan Part 2: Detailed Policies' and dismissing its claim for judicial review of the authority's adoption of its community infrastructure levy charging schedule. In respect of the former, it held that there had been no error of law in the inspector's conclusion that, with the proposed main modifications, the local plan part 2 had been sound. 

Patent – Infringement. The Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court, in dismissing Saertex France SAS' claim for infringement of a patent concerning a method of manufacture of fibre-based reinforcements, ruled that the patent was invalid, both as granted and as conditionally proposed to be amended, for lack of novelty and inventive step. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. In the claimant indeterminate sentence prisoner's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to transfer him from open conditions back to closed conditions, following the introduction of a 'new absconder policy', the Administrative Court held that fairness had demanded that, after his return, the claimant be given sufficient reasons for the decision and an opportunity to make meaningful representations. However, subject to further argument, it was minded not to grant relief.