Latest Cases

Sentence – Mandatory life sentence. The Administrative Court refused to recommend a reduction of the offender's tariff of 12 years, less the time spent in custody on remand, for murder, as exceptional and unforeseen progress had not been established. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Planning Court rejected the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's decision to grant the interested party planning permission for a residential-led mixed use development. Its conclusions included that there had been no erroneous approach to emerging policy, no breach of statutory duty and no procedural unfairness. 

Limitation of action – Period of limitation. A judge had determined that a standstill agreement between the parties, which provided that time would be suspended for the purposes of any limitation defence in relation to claims made by the claimant, did not have the effect of suspending time in relation to the claimant's claims in deceit. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant's appeal as, on the proper construction of that agreement, the claims in dishonesty arose indirectly from the background to the claims as set out in the agreement. 

Sentence – Mandatory life sentence. The Administrative Court, reduced the offender's tariff of 17 years and 1 month for murder by ten months, as the offender's progress had been exceptional. 

Costs – Order for costs. Following earlier proceedings (see [2015] All ER (D) 279 (Oct)), the Chancery Division ruled that that the third respondent ought to pay to the petitioning creditor the costs fairly attributable to its response to her own hostile rescission application and to her particular opposition to the class remedy sought by the petitioning creditor (though not those costs which would have been incurred even if she had not appeared). 

Contract – Construction. The claimant NHS Commissioning Board alleged that it had overpaid the defendant GPs in respect of payments made to them towards their practice's costs of purchasing premises and it sought repayment or rectification of the relevant contract. The payments had been based on the fixed interest rate originally payable for the defendants' loan. The Commercial Court allowed the defendant's application for summary judgment where there was no arguable case that there was an implied term that premises costs were to be paid in accordance with the National Health Service (General Medical Services Premises Costs (England) Directions 2004. Further, the case of rectification for mistake was lacking in any evidential basis and had no prospect of success. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Aeronautica Militare — Stato Maggiore (Aeronautica) against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) concerning opposition proceedings between Aeronautica and Creative Brands Marken GmbH regarding the application by the latter for registration of the figurative sign 'TRECOLORE' as a Community trade mark. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by JP Divver Holding Company Ltd (Divver) against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) concerning opposition proceedings between the examiner and Divver regarding the application by the latter for registration of the word mark 'EQUIPMENT FOR LIFE' as a Community trade mark. 

Landlord and tenant – Leasehold enfranchisement. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant's appeal against the judge's decision that the premises in issue did not constitute a house within s 2(1) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, so that the claimant was not entitled to enfranchise. Claims to enfranchise buildings comprising shops with accommodation above should not be dismissed for non-compliance with the reasonably so called condition in s 2(1) either because the building was, as a matter of ordinary speech, best described as a shop or because the accommodation was not linked internally to the remainder of the building. There ought to be no warrant for distinguishing between similar types of building solely on the basis of their external appearance or their internal layout. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division dismissed the father's application, under the court's inherent jurisdiction, for an order that his child should move to live in Algeria and for a stay of the mother's proceedings in England. It held, among other things, that it was clearly not in a position to decide, on a summary basis, that it would be in the child's best interests to make the orders sought. To make a summary order uprooting her from her home and requiring her to move with her mother to Algeria would be contrary to her best interests.