*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.

London Borough of Newham v Ali and others

Injunction Breach of covenant. The defendants were trustees over land on which they had established a mosque. The local authority served an enforcement notice for breach of planning control and the defendants had appealed. During the appeal hearing, the defendants entered into a unilateral deed whereby they covenanted to: (i) submit a valid planning application for development of the land, and (ii) remove the buildings from the land should they fail to comply with the requirement to submit a valid planning application. The defendants failed to submit a valid planning application and the authority sought an injunction ordering specific performance of the covenant to remove the buildings from the land. The High Court allowed the application and ordered specific performance.

Feeney v Secretary of State for Transport

Town and country planning Permission for development. The Administrative Court held that conditions imposed upon planning permission for the development of works to the railway between Oxford and Bicester, and for the construction of a new length of railway running close to the Oxford Meadows special area of conservation, which included lowland hay meadow habitat present in sites of special scientific interest, had been appropriate and that no appropriate assessment under Council Directive (EEC) 92-43 (on the Conservation of Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora) (the Habitats Directive) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2012, was required.

*Re Harlequin Management Services Ltd

Administrator Appointment. A London based company, Harlequin Management Services Ltd, was an international property investment agent, specialising in luxury resorts in the Caribbean. The directors of the company instructed solicitors to give notice of intention to appoint administrators and the notice was filed in May 2013. An issue arose as to whether the administrators had been validly appointed as the requisite consent from the Financial Conduct Authority had been filed the day after the notice of intention to appoint administrators. The directors and the administrators applied for a declaration that the appointment was valid. The Chancery Division, Companies Court, held that, applying settled law, on the proper construction of of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, a consent filed on the day after the filing of a notice of intention to appoint administrators could still be said to have been filed 'along with' a notice of intention to appoint or to 'accompany' the notice of appointment. Accordingly a declaration would be granted that the administrators had been validly appointed.

R (on the application of Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd and another) v Environment Agency

Water and watercourses Flooding. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal of the Environment Agency, upheld a finding that it failed properly to interpret, apply or have regard to its own policy when it classified sluices on the Manchester Ship Canal as 'formal' flood defences on the ground that their 'primary' purpose was flood prevention, with the effect that land, which was owned and proposed for development by the claimants, had been at a higher risk of flooding. The sluices were an integral part of the canal, serving a dual purpose of providing flood defences and navigational purposes for the canal, but the defendant had not been entitled, applying its own policies which distinguished between 'primary' purposes and 'secondary' purposes of flood defences, to find that, by having a dual purpose, the sluices had had dual 'primary' purposes.

R (on the application of Watson) v Richmond London Borough Council and another

Town and country planning Permission for development. The interested party obtained planning permission for a proposed redevelopment of Twickenham rail station. The claimant applied for judicial review of the grant of planning permission on the basis, inter alia, that the defendant local authority had failed to take into account a material consideration in the form of a report (the TAP report). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal as the failure of the authority's planning committee to take the TAP report into account had not amounted to a breach of the statutory duty to have regard to material considerations.

Hammersmatch Properties (Welwyn) Ltd v Saint-Gobain Ceramics and Plastics Ltd and another

Landlord and tenant Business premises. The Technology and Construction Court considered issues arising from the dilapidation of a property of which the first defendant company, SG, was the freehold owner, and the claimant company, Hammersmatch, was the successor landlord. The court held, among other things, that the damages payable to Hammersmatch would be limited by of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 to the diminution of the reversion, which would be assessed at 900,000.