Champion v North Norfolk District Council and another

Town and country planning Development consent. The defendant local authority granted planning permission for the development of a site that was in close proximity to the River Wensum; a site of special scientific interest. The authority consulted with Natural England and concluded that an environmental impact assessment and a habitats appropriate assessment were not required as there was no risk of contamination. However, the authority imposed conditions on the planning permission that required the monitoring of water quality and measures for remediation if the river became contaminated. The Administrative Court held that the planning permission would be quashed as it was not rationally possible to impose conditions which pointed to a risk of contamination but, at the same time, adopt the view that there was no relevant risk of pollution.

Hunt and others v Optima (Cambridge) Ltd and others

Practice Interest. The proceedings concerned defects in a block of flats, which had been constructed by the first defendant company (Optima) and assessed by the second defendant architect's firm (S&P). The Technology and Construction Court found for the claimants at an earlier hearing (see ). The court held that interest on the sums payable to the claimant by S&P would be at a rate of base rate plus two per cent, although no interest would be paid on the main sums payable by Optima. The court further held that the claimants would be entitled to 90% of their costs of the proceedings.

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

Town and country planning Enforcement notice. The appellants challenged the decision of an inspector for the Secretary of State to require the removal of one kitchen to remedy the appellants' breach of planning control. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the inspector had not addressed the question of whether or not the installation of the kitchens had in fact been undertaken for a different, lawful use. The matter would be remitted to the inspector as there was insufficient evidence to indicate that there had been only one answer to that question.

National Merchant Buying Society Ltd v Bellamy and another

Guarantee Liability of guarantor. Stephen Mallett had given a personal guarantee in respect of a line of credit that had been extended to a company of which he was a director. After Mr Mallett had sold his shares in the company, that line of credit had been further extended before the company went into creditors' voluntary liquidation. The claimant society, which had extended the credit, sought to enforce the guarantee. Mr Mallett contended that he had been discharged from the guarantee because of the extensions to the credit limit to which he had neither consented nor had knowledge. The judge found that he remained liable. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed Mr Mallett's appeal, finding that, on the true interpretation of the guarantee, his liability had continued.

R (on the application of Houghton and Wyton Parish Council) v Huntingdonshire District Council

Town and country planning Development plan. The claimant parish council sought judicial review of the defendant district council's decision to implement a framework for planning guidance. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the framework did not contain a site allocation policy and did not need to be adopted as a development plan document. However, policies within the framework ought to have been contained in a local development document and the court exercised its discretion to quash the framework.

Co-operative Group Ltd v Birse Developments Ltd

Particulars of claim Amendment. The claimant was owner of two warehouses which had been built by the defendant, with some of the work having been sub-contracted to a third party. The claimant was dissatisfied with the work carried out by the sub-contractor and issued proceedings against the defendant shortly before the limitation period expired. The claimant subsequently sought to amend its particulars of claim after the limitation period had ended. The judge permitted such a change, finding that the claim sought to be introduced in the amendment had not sought to introduce a new cause of action. The defendant and sub-contractor appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal, finding that the amended claim had sought to assert a new cause of action.

*R (on the application of Stern) v Horsham District Council

Town and country planning Development. The claimant was the owner and occupier of a barn in relation to which the defendant authority served planning enforcement notices, but not within the requisite period of time required by s172(3)(b) of the . The claimant wished to appeal against the notices and instructed a planning consultant, who served the appeal notices, but out of time. The claimant sought to persuade the authority to withdraw the notices and to re-issue fresh enforcement notices in order to give him an opportunity to appeal, but the authority refused. The claimant brought judicial review proceedings seeking to challenge the validity of the notices. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that, on the ordinary principles of statutory interpretation, interpreting s174(2)(e) of the Act, which enabled an owner to appeal against a notice on the basis that it had not been served as required by s172 of the Act, the words had to be given a narrower meaning, namely where an enforcement notice had not been served at all, rather than where it had not been served in time. Accordingly, s 285 of the Act did not prevent the claimant from challenging the validity of the notices on the ground that the notices had not been served within the time required by s172(3). The claimant had been substantially prejudiced by the authority's breach of duty and the notices would be quashed.

Tael One Partners Ltd (acting in its capacity as general partner of The Asian Entrepreneur Legacy One LP) v Morgan Stanley & Co International plc

Contract Construction. In earlier proceedings the Commercial Court ordered summary judgment, awarding the claimant US$615,597 on the ground that a payment premium was payable by the defendant on repayment of the loan as condition 11.9(a) of the Loan Market Association terms for par trade transactions (the LMA terms) conferred an extra right to sums which had not accrued by the settlement date. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the defendant's appeal held that, on the true construction of the LMA terms, the claimant was not entitled to claim the payment premium as the sums had not accrued at the settlement date and there was no extra entitlement beyond what was said to be payable in the LMA terms. Accordingly, the judge's order was set aside and the claimant's claim was dismissed.

R (on the application of Prideaux) v Buckinghamshire County Council

Town and country planning Permission for development. The claimant contested the grant of planning permission for a waste facility and access road, the construction of which would have detrimental impact upon the environment. The defendant local authority granted planning permission, and Natural England subsequently granted derogation licences allowing detrimental work to take place. At a later date, the licences were quashed by consent, but not before detrimental work had already taken place in respect of two protected species of bats. The claimant brought judicial review proceedings claiming that the grant of planning permission had been unlawful. Permission to proceed with judicial review was allowed but the claim was dismissed. The local authority was not required to perform the function of Natural England. The authority had not acted contrary to Government policy and it had provided adequate reasons for the granting the permission.

Hunt and others v Optima (Cambridge) Ltd and others

Building Construction. The Technology and Construction Court considered a claim by long leaseholders in a block of flats, against, among others, the firm of architects responsible for developing the flats and the company employed to inspect the premises with a view to providing certificates to potential purchasers to confirm the quality of the construction. The court held that the repairing covenant covered, among others, the claimants, and that the architects had owed a duty of care to the claimants. The costs of remedial work would be allowed, as well as damages for each claimant proportionate to their loss.