Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Planning authority. The claimant national house building companies challenged the executive committee of the first defendant local authority's decision that a draft neighbourhood plan should be put to a referendum. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the authority had properly conducted a sustainability assessment, had met the relevant basic conditions and had set out its reasons for adopting a policy enabling managed housing growth. Further, the authority's examiner had not been biased. 

Criminal Law – Importation of prohibited goods. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a sentence of six years' imprisonment for conspiracy to evade a prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug of Class A, contrary to s 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977, had been unduly lenient. Despite the offender's limited involvement in the conspiracy, the judge ought to have scaled up the sentence to reflect the massive quantities involved within the operation. The offender's sentence would be quashed and substituted for a sentence of eleven years' imprisonment. 

Employment – Discrimination against a woman. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), in dismissing the employee's appeal against the rejection by the employment tribunal of her claims for maternity discrimination, indirect sex discrimination and constructive dismissal, found that although the tribunal had erred factually in its approach to constructive dismissal, its conclusion on the facts had been plainly and obviously right. The EAT also made some observations about the procedure to be adopted where the parties found it difficult to agree bundles for use at the EAT. 

Solicitor – Negligence. The claimant had instructed the defendant solicitors to act for her in purchasing a property. The solicitors did not advise her about restrictive covenants that affected the property. She carried out works in breach of the covenants and the neighbour with the benefit of the covenants complained. The claimant instructed the defendants to act for her. They did not, for some time, advise her to stop all works on the property but, when they did, she continued the works and the neighbour took out an injunction. The Recorder found the defendant had failed to make clear that the works had to stop and that, had the claimant known of the covenants, she would not have gone ahead with the purchase. Damages were awarded. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the Recorder had erred in finding that the bringing of the injunction proceedings had been caused by the defendant's negligence, but that his conclusion that the claimant would not have gone ahead with the purchase had been correct. The appeal against the calculation of damages was successful in part. 

Immigration – Leave to enter. The appeal concerned the amended Immigration Rules that required a UK spouse or partner to meet a minimum income requirement before their non-EEA partner would be permitted leave to enter the United Kingdom to join them. The Administrative Court had held that there was substantial merit in the contention that the amendments amounted to a disproportionate interference with the UK partners' rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but did not grant declaratory relief. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had erred in his analysis and had reached the wrong conclusion on compatibility. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The first and second defendants were convicted of conspiracy to supply amphetamine, and the third defendant was convicted of doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of justice. The Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the case on the basis of fresh evidence as to the principal witness for the prosecution. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the addition to the opprobrium of the witness of one post-trial allegation would not have been of the significance necessary to cast doubt upon the safety of the defendants' convictions. 

The respondent issued proceedings for negligence, nuisance and breach of statutory duty for damage suffered in an explosion at the appellants' factory. The judge found in favour of the appellants, but the Inner House of Court of Session reversed that decision and the appellants appealed. The Supreme Court, in allowing the appeal, held that s 11(3) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 was to be read as if it said 'the creditor was not aware … that loss, injury or damage, which had been caused as aforesaid, had occurred'. Accordingly, any obligation the appellants had owed to make reparation to the respondent had prescribed before the proceedings had begun. 

Trade union – Recognition. The claimant (Boots) sought judicial review of the decision of the defendant Central Arbitration Committee (the CAC) that the application of the Pharmacists' Defence Association Union (the PDAU) to be recognised by the Boots for the purposes of collective bargaining on behalf of the pharmacists employed by Boots was admissible. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that, on the proper interpretation of 'collective bargaining' in para 134(1) of Sch A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the PDAU's application to the CAC had been rendered inadmissible by para 35 of Sch A1 to the Act. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings, contending that the Secretary of State had failed to consult the public of the Republic of Ireland in accordance with art 7 of Directive (EU) 2011/92 in granting development consent for the construction of a European pressurised reactor nuclear power station. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the application, held that the test was not whether the project was 'likely to have significant effects on the environment' applying to Council Directive (EEC) 92/43, but the 'real risk' test adopted in domestic authorities. It further refused to make a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union. 

Local government – Council tax. The Administrative Court allowed the appellant's appeal by way of case stated against the justices' decision, committing him to prison for 90 days, suspended on payment of £100 per month in respect of his liability for unpaid council tax. The effect of the order was that the period for repayment would exceed six years, which was simply too long.