Latest Cases

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant of planning permission for an extensive development of two sites. A heritage contribution, pursuant to an agreement under s 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, was lawful, the authority had given sufficient reasons and the conclusion that the authority had been unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing had been justified. 

Croft – Resumption of croft or part of croft by landlord – Competency of application to Land Court. Court of Session: In a special case stated by the Scottish Land Court, which had granted an application for authority for resumption of land forming part of a common grazing, rejecting the respondent's contention that the application was incompetent, the court held that that an owner of land over which there was a right of common grazing in favour of crofting tenants was a 'landlord' for the purposes of s 20 of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993, the meaning of 'landlord' where it appeared in s 20 was provided by the definition in s 61 of the Act, and having regard to that definition the Land Court did not err in holding that the reference to 'landlord' in s 20 applied to all owners of common grazing land and, in particular, the applicant. 

Immigration – Leave to remain – Right to family life. Court of Session: Granting a judicial review petition by an Indian citizen, challenging the refusal of his application for leave to remain in the UK as the spouse of a British citizen, the court held that the respondent had not shown by her refusal letter that proper consideration had been given to the whole circumstances of the case, either within the Immigration Rules or outside of them. 

Child – Care. The Family Court held that the only way in which the future of a 12-year-old boy could be safeguarded was by making him a ward of court. He could not be made a ward whilst he was subject to an interim care order and so that order would be discharged. For the same reasons, it was contrary to his welfare to allow care proceedings to continue and, accordingly, the local authority was given permission to withdraw its application for a care order. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal by Toshiba Corporation (Toshiba), asking the Court to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 21 May 2014 in Toshiba v Commission (T‑519/09, whereby the General Court had dismissed Toshiba's action for annulment of Decision C(2009) 7601 final of the European Commission of 7 October 2009 relating to a proceeding under art 81 EC in respect of Toshiba's participation in an unlawful cartel in relation to the market for power transformers. 

Construction contract – Arbitration. The Technology and Construction Court dismissed the claimant company's application for summary judgment to enforce the decision of an adjudicator in a case relating a woodworking machine. The court held that the defendant company had an arguable case that the adjudicator had lacked jurisdiction, because the machine did fulfil the criteria of a 'structure' under the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, but did not form part of the claimant's land, so that its installation at the claimant's premises had not been a 'construction operation' within the meaning of the Act. 

Compensation – Criminal injuries. The Court of Protection held, in what was agreed to be a matter of general importance, that a deputy or an attorney acting on behalf of an applicant in regard to an award under the Criminal Injury Compensation Authority could accept and finalise a such an award on behalf of a patient. Section 20(3)(a) and further or alternatively s 20(3)(c) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 did not preclude a deputy from so doing. 

Town and country planning – Development. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant of planning permission for the redevelopment of a site within the buffer zone of the Liverpool world heritage site. Paragraph 18a-036 of the National Planning Practice Guidance had not required notification of the application to the UNESCO World Heritage Committee for consultation. 

Immigration – European Economic Area nationals. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against a finding of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (FTT) that the appellant Brazilian national had entered into a marriage of convenience with a Portuguese national in order to re-enter and remain in the United Kingdom. While the legal burden of proof lay on the Secretary of State throughout, the evidential burden could shift. The errors in law made by the FTT had not been material to the outcome. 

European Union – Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union granted the declaration sought by the European Commission that by failing: (i) to include all the territories of the IPAS in the special protection area covering the Kaliakra region; (ii) approving the implementation of certain projects; (iii) to assess properly the cumulative effects of those projects, Bulgaria had failed to fulfil its obligations under art 6(2) of Council Directive (EEC) 92/43, art 4(1), (2), (4) of Directive (EC) 2009/147 and arts 2(1), 4(2) and (3) of Directive 2011/92/EU.