R (on the application of Baker) v Bath and North East Somerset Council and another

Town and country planning Permission for development. The interested party, H Ltd, operated a waste composting site. The claimant lived near the site. Following the quashing of various planning permissions due to the fact that para13 of Sch 2 to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, did not properly implement European Union law, with the result that applications required to be screened, H Ltd continued to operate the site in the manner that would have been permitted by them. The Secretary of State made positive screening directions and accordingly, there were before the respondent authority three live applications for planning permission which would, if granted, operate with retrospective effect. The purported environmental statement submitted by H Ltd was inadequate and 14 months later, the authority decided that H Ltd ought to have a further three months to present a complete environmental statement and the issue of whether an enforcement notice should be issued was withdrawn from the agenda. The claimant sought to challenge the decision by way of judicial review proceedings. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claim, held that there was no duty on the authority under EU law immediately to issue an enforcement notice in the circumstances and, notwithstanding the court's initial misgivings, on the evidence, the authority had reached a fair, reasonable and proportionate decision on the relevant issue.

Cheshire East Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others

Town and country planning Permission for development. The first defendant Secretary of State overturned the claimant local authority's refusal of outline planning permission for the erection of up to 269 dwellings and associated works. The claimant sought the quashing of the decision on prematurity grounds. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claim, held that the Secretary of State had not failed to take into account a material consideration, misunderstood a relevant policy or given inadequate reasons.

R (on the application of Mombeshora) v Secretary of State for Home Department

Immigration Leave to remain. The claimant, a national of Zimbabwe, applied to the defendant Secretary of State for leave to remain in the UK (the May 2009 application). In completing the relevant form, the claimant did not provide details of his national insurance number, amongst other things. The Secretary of State rejected the application on the basis that it was invalid as various questions had not been completed. The claimant subsequently applied for leave to remain as a spouse of a person settled in the UK, but the Secretary of State rejected the application on the basis that the claimant's leave to remain had expired and that he had not had leave to remain at the time of the second application. The claimant challenged that decision by way of judicial review proceedings. The Administrative Court, in allowing the claim, held that the Secretary of State had erred in treating the May 2009 application as invalid; reading the words of the form, the applicant was required to complete it with details of his national insurance number 'if known' not 'if capable of being ascertained'. The decision of the Secretary of State would be quashed and the matter would be remitted to it for reconsideration.

*Uprichard v Scottish Ministers and another

Town and country planning District plan. The Supreme Court, determining an appeal from the Inner House, Court of Session, held that the appellant's objections to the validity of a structure plan submitted by the planing authority responsible for Fife and, in particular St Andrews, had been adequately considered by the first respondent Scottish Ministers, and the Ministers had given adequate reasons for rejecting the objections.

MT Hojgaard A/S v E.ON Climate & Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd and another

Contract Variation. The Technology and Construction Court considered a number of preliminary issues relating to the correct valuation of variation orders, in circumstances where a contract to design, manufacture, deliver, install and commission the foundations for 60 wind turbine generators and 2 substations for a wind farm in the Solway Firth had been varied to substitute a different vessel to do the installation work.

R (on the application of Catt) v Brighton & Hove City Council

Town and Country Planning Development consent. The defendant local planning authority granted development consent based on an Environmental Impact Assessment screening process that had been conducted in June 2011. The claimant opposed the grant of development consent for nearby land. The claimant contended that the June 2011 screening process had been flawed. The authority admitted to conducting a flawed process and carried out a second screening process that also concluded that the development was not an EIA development. In December 2012, two subsequent planning permissions were granted in respect of the same site. These subsequent permissions had been based on screening processes conducted in August 2012 and November 2012. The claimant issued two applications for judicial review, one concerning the August 2011 permission and the other concerning the two permissions granted in 2012. The essence of both claims was that the screening opinions had been unlawful. Aside from the admitted flaws in the June 2011 screening process, the Administrative Court held that the authority had otherwise conducted impeccable screening processes and the claim for judicial review in respect of the December 2012 permissions would be dismissed. Further, although the August 2011 permission had been granted unlawfully and the second screening opinion could not remedy a flawed process. In the circumstances of the instant case, the court would not exercise its discretion to quash the August 2011 planning permission.

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

Town and Country Planning Permission for development. The claimants applied for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to grant planning permission for a regeneration scheme at Crystal Palace on the basis, inter alia, that the application had not been properly constituted. The judge dismissed that claim and the claimants appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the claimants' appeal as the application had been properly constituted and the Secretary of State had been entitled to grant planning permission.

RWE Npower Renewables Ltd v J N Bentley Ltd

Building contract Construction. The Technology and Construction Court considered the wording of documents relating to a contract between the parties to construct hydro-electric facilities in Scotland. The court held that a declaration would be made stating that to achieve completion of the second section of the works, the defendant company would be required to undertake certain engineering work.

R (on the application of Burridge) v Breckland District Council

Town and Country Planning Planning permission. The defendant local authority granted the interested party two planning permissions for a biomass renewable energy plant and a combined heat and power plant. The claimant applied for judicial review on the basis that a further screening opinion under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, should have been carried out. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division dismissed the claimant's appeal against the judge's decision to dismiss her application. There was no reason to interfere with the judge's findings, which had been properly open to him in the circumstances of the instant case.

Roche Diagnostics Ltd v Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust

Disclosure and inspection of documents Production of documents. The Technology and Construction Court made an order for specific disclosure in the context of a public procurement dispute.