Latest Cases

European Union – Freedom of establishment. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things, that art 2(2)(d) of Directive (EC) 2006/123 had to be interpreted as meaning that vehicle roadworthiness testing activities were excluded from the scope of application of that directive. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant of planning permission for the development of four poultry broiler units on agricultural land. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that it had been entirely open to the authority to have concluded that no environmental impacts justifying refusal had been disclosed and that there had been no error of law in considering the impact on a Grade II listed building. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. A freezing injunction had been made in respect of a company of which MW was director. The company and MW were found to be in contempt of the order because of disputed payments made in discharge of repayment of a loan and for outstanding arrears of rent. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal by the company and MW on the grounds that the judge had taken too narrow a view of the payments which had, in the circumstances, been made in the ordinary course of business and so fell within an exception to the freezing order. 

European Union – Reference to European Court. The Administrative Court decided to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union on core issues of whether the European Commission had been able to make the agreements with Morocco, and remain in conformity with international law and the Charter of the United Nations, without the consultation and consent of the Saharawi people and their recognised representatives first having been obtained. 

European Union – Customs and excise. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things, that arts 4(1) and 5 of Directive 98/70 should be interpreted as meaning that they did not preclude a member state from laying down in its national law quality requirements that were additional to the ones contained in that directive for the marketing of diesel fuels, such as that relating to the flash point at issue in the main proceedings, since it did not constitute a technical specification of diesel fuels relating to the protection of health and the environment for the purposes of that directive. 

Land – Purchase of land. The Technology and Construction Court allowed the claimant company's claim for an outstanding fee due under an oral agreement. On the evidence, there was no basis to limit the fee as the defendant contended. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimants applied for an order quashing the decision of the first defendant Secretary of State, allowing the third defendant's appeal against the second defendant local planning authority's refusal of planning permission for residential development. The Planning Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the Secretary of State's inspector had not been required to refer to the draft neighbourhood plan and the claimants had failed to establish any error on her part. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant applied for an order quashing the decision of the first defendant Secretary of State, dismissing his appeal against the second defendant local planning authority's refusal of planning permission for a bungalow and associated curtilage. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State's inspector had applied para 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework, had not elided the impact on the openness of the Green Belt and visual impact, and had given adequate reasons. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division held that the child A had no habitual residence due to being shuffled between Italy and Romania, He was familiar comfortable with both environments and was integrated into both families, therefore the father's application for the summary return of the child from Romania to Italy was dismissed. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division considered the relevant law in relation to arts 8 and 14 of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 and the Family Law Act 1986 and found that on the facts, that despite the English courts having jurisdiction in respect of the child by virtue of her presence in England at the time proceedings were issued pursuant to art 14 of the Regulation and s 3(1)(b) of the Family Law Act 1986, the court was nevertheless satisfied, on the facts, that the appropriate forum for determining the substantive issues between the parties was the jurisdiction of South Korea.