Lazari v London & Newcastle (Camden) Ltd

Practice Payment into court. The Technology and Construction Court dismissed the claimant's application, as part of ongoing proceedings, that payment into court be increased. The court held that it ought to be reluctant to jump into a developing fray between the parties, particularly where it had already ruled once broadly on the same grounds, just because the claimant had since increased her claim and put in some more evidence which supported her claim.

Harrogate Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Town and country planning Planning permission. The appellant local authority granted planning permission for the conversion of a former hostel and caretaker's cottage to form two dwellings. An inspector for the respondent Secretary of State allowed an appeal against that decision and the authority appealed. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the inspector's interpretation of the relevant plan policy had been correct and his reasons had been adequate.

Manolete Partners PLC v Hastings Borough Council

Local authority Decision of local authority. The claimant company claimed for loss of profit and diminution of business caused by the closing of a pier, on which it ran a bingo hall and amusement arcade, by the defendant local authority. The Technology and Construction Court held that the authority was liable to provide compensation to the claimant, and that the claimant was not in default within the meaning of of the Building Act 1984.

R (on the application of Garlick) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Town and country planning Permission for development. The claimant sought retrospective planning permission to authorise the independent residential use of a unit. The local authority and an inspector for the Secretary of State refused the application. The claimant sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the inspector had not made an error of law and that there had been no procedural unfairness.

Oxford Diocesan Board of Finance v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another

Town and country planning Permission for development. The claimant had been refused planning permission for the development of dwellings. The Secretary of State refused its appeal. The Administrative Court allowed the claimant's application under s288 of the on the ground that the Secretary of State had failed to take into account a ministerial statement which referred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's call for action for growth which stated that the 'planning system has a key role to play in this, by ensuring that the sustainable development needed to support economic growth is able to proceed as easily as possible'.

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

Town and Country Planning Development. The claimant was a gypsy. She was refused retrospective planning permission for the site on which she and her extended family, which included small children, were living. An inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State dismissed the claimant's appeal. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the inspector's decision as it was clear that the inspector had had the children's best interests at the forefront of her mind and she had been fully entitled to conclude that the dismissal of the appeal against the refusal of planning permission would not have a disproportionate impact upon the claimant and her family.

Heifer International Ltd v Christiansen and another

Charging order Judgment debt. A dispute arose between the parties in relation to the refurbishment of domestic property (the property). Subsequently, a costs order was made against the claimant and a charging order was placed on his property. The claimant applied to discharge the order. In dismissing its claim, the Technology and Construction Court held that, on the facts, it would be wholly wrong to discharge the final charging order.

Willmott Dixon Housing Ltd v Newlon Housing Trust

Arbitration Adjudication. The Technology and Construction Court held, in granting the claimant company's application for summary judgment, that the defendant company had no real prospect of successfully defending the enforcement of two adjudication decisions, where papers had been correctly submitted and where there was nothing to prevent a party from giving two notices of adjudication.

St Edmundsbury Borough Council and another v Reynolds and others

Town and country planning Enforcement of planning control. The defendant had been made the subject of an injunction under s187B of the which required her and others to rectify planning breaches. She appealed. The Queen's Bench Division allowed her appeal in part. With regard to her fear of her former husband who also owned the land, the judge had been correct to find that genuine fear was no justification for her inaction. However, the injunction was revoked in respect of her so far as it related to land which she neither owned nor controlled.

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

Town and country planning Development. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claimant's application pursuant to of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, held that the planning inspector had not misconstrued the 'waste hierarchy' policy in allowing an appeal against a decision to refuse planning permission for a proposed waste treatment facility.