Latest Cases

European Union – Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that arts 2(a) and 3(2)(a) of Directive (EC) 2001/42 had to be interpreted as meaning that the adoption of a measure containing a plan or programme relating to town and country planning and land use falling within the scope of the Directive that modified an existing plan or programme could not be exempted from the obligation to carry out an environmental assessment under that directive on the ground that that measure was intended to give more specific expression to and implement a master plan established by a hierarchically superior measure that had not, itself, been the subject of such an environmental assessment. 

Practice – Striking out. The Chancery Division ruled that the claimants' action, concerning joint venture agreements allegedly entered into by the deceased, would be struck out as an abuse of process where the claimants had failed to comply with the guidelines in Aldi Stores Ltd v WSP London Ltd[2007] All ER (D) 433 (Nov), by seeking directions from the judge as to their claims against the deceased estate in circumstances where a similar claim had been dismissed. An inexcusable failure to follow the Aldi guidelines was a heavyweight factor in favour of a finding of abuse of process. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant challenged the first defendant Secretary of State's decision, dismissing his appeal against the second defendant local planning authority's refusal to permit non-compliance with a condition previously attached to earlier permission. The Planning Court, in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State had failed to give adequate reasons for his decision and had failed to grapple with a principle issue adequately. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant challenged the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State to grant planning permission for, among other things, the demolition of a single-storey former nightclub and the erection of a three-storey building with commercial and residential uses. The Planning Court dismissed the claimant's six grounds of challenge, including that the inspector had failed to take into account, as a material consideration, the harm the development would do to the viability of the claimant's tavern. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division granted, in seven cases (the eighth case having been adjourned), the declaration of parentage sought, in circumstances where it had subsequently come to light that there had been administrative errors by certain fertility clinics, concerning consent to acquisition of parenthood. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Slovenia to face prosecution on a charge of fraud. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had been entitled to find that the judicial authority had decided to charge him and place him on trial, and that extradition would not be disproportionate, in particular on the basis of the availability of less coercive measures and his rights to a private and family life. 

European Union – Freedom of establishment. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling deciding, among other things, that the deposits excluded under point 7 of Annex I to Directive (EC) 94/19, as amended by Directive (EC) 2009/14, were listed exhaustively in that provision, so that the member states could not provide, in their national law, for other categories of depositors who were not covered, in terms of the functions carried out, by the concepts listed in that point, in order for the exclusion from the deposit-guarantee to be applied to them. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling relating to the interpretation of art 5(1) and (3), and Chapter II, Section 5 (arts 18 to 21), and art 60(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001. The request had been made in proceedings between Holterman Ferho Exploitatie BV and three of its subsidiary companies and Mr Spies von Büllesheim concerning the latter's liability as manager of those companies and a claim that he be ordered to pay damages. 

Value added tax – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 148(a) of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112. The request had been made in proceedings between 'Fast Bunkering Klaipėda' UAB ('FBK') and the State Tax Inspectorate under the Finance Ministry of Lithuania concerning the status of supplies of fuel to intermediaries acting in their own name with regard to VAT. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things, that art 24(1) of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112 should be interpreted as meaning that the term 'supply of services' included subscription contracts for the supply of consulting services to an undertaking, in particular those of a legal, commercial or financial nature, under which a supplier had agreed to be available to the customer during the term of the contract.