Hartleyburn Parish Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others

Town and country planning Appeal to Minister against refusal of permission for development. The claimant parish council appealed against the decision of an inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State to grant the third defendant company planning permission for the opencast extraction of coal with restoration of land. The third defendant sought summary judgment, as the challenges were to the planning merits. The Administrative Court, in granting summary judgment, held that the claimant's challenges were to the inspector's planning judgment and that it would not be able to surmount the hurdle it faced in order to challenge it.

Bayliss v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others

Town and Country Planning Planning permission. The third defendant developer had an application for planning permission for the construction of a wind farm refused by the second defendant local authority. An inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State allowed the third defendant's appeal and granted planning permission. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant local resident's application for judicial review as, inter alia, the inspector had not erred in the manner in which he had dealt with the harm to the nearby area of outstanding natural beauty that the proposed development would cause.

R (on the application of Holder) v Gedling Borough Council

Town and country planning Permission for development. The defendant local authority granted the interested parties planning permission for a wind turbine. The claimant sought judicial review of that decision. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that: (i) a planning officer was entitled to advise the authority on what constituted material considerations; (ii) undertakings given by the interested parties as to noise levels were valid and enforceable; and (iii) a senior planning officer had carried out the requisite analysis in determining that an environmental impact assessment was not required.

Elvanite Full Circle Ltd v AMEC Earth & Environmental (UK) Ltd

Building contract Breach. The Technology and Construction Court considered a dispute regarding a planning application for waste recycling on a site. The claimant company contended that, as a result of the defendant company's negligence, it was unable to sell the site for the amount which it had sought. The defendant counterclaimed. The court held that, among other things, owing to the conditions of the contract between the parties, the claimant would be time-barred from bringing the claim. The counterclaim would be allowed in part.

R (on the application of Harrison) v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council

Town and country planning Permission for development. The defendant planning authority declined, under of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to determine the claimant's application for planning permission, on the basis that it was the same or substantially the same as a prior application. The claimant sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the authority had not asked itself and answered the right questions in accordance with a circular when making its decision.

Delaney v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another

Town and country planning Development. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that a planning inspector had not erred in finding that the failure of the second defendant local planning authority to carry out an assessment of the accommodation needs of gypsies and travellers residing in its district, and to prepare a strategy in respect of the meeting of that need, had not outweighed the other material considerations going against a further temporary permission on Green Belt land.

*Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd v Higgins Construction plc

Building contract Adjudication. The Technology and Construction Court held that there was no implied term that the unsuccessful party in an adjudication was entitled to have the dispute determined by litigation and to repayment if successful. Further, the essential claimed cause of action relied upon by the claimant involved a negative declaration that it was not in breach of contract or duty and that the defendant did not incur the loss eventually found by the adjudicator was barred by limitation.

*White Rosebay Shipping SA v Hong Kong Chain Glory Shipping Ltd

Shipping Charterparty. An arbitration tribunal held that the claimant shipowners were not entitled to claim damages from the defendant charterers, who had allegedly repudiated a charterparty, because the owners had affirmed the charterparty prior to termination. The owners appealed. In allowing the appeal in part, the Commercial Court held that, applying settled law and on the facts, the tribunal had erred in law in concluding that it necessarily followed from the owners' affirmation that, by their withdrawal of the vessel, the owners themselves had committed a repudiatory breach of the charterparty.

Venulum Property Investments Ltd v Space Architecture Ltd and others

Particulars of claim Service. The Technology and Construction Court considered the claimant company's application to extend time for the service of its particulars of claim. The court held that, considering the weakness of the claimant's claim against some of the defendants, and the lack of explanation as to why the claimant had delayed so long before instructing solicitors, the claimant's application would be refused.

*HSBC Bank plc v Tambrook Jersey Ltd

Company Administration order. A Jersey registered company found itself in an insolvency situation, HSBC bank having called in loans and interest due. The company's main assets were properties in England. The parties agreed that the best solution would be an administration order. However, such a course of action was not available in Jersey. The parties agreed to ask the Royal Court of Jersey for assistance. The Royal Court sent a letter of request to the High Court asking for its assistance. The bank applied for an administration order. The judge refused the application on the ground that he did not have jurisdiction under s426 of the . The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, concluded that the judge had erred in his interpretation of s426(4) and made an administration order.