Town and County Planning Permission for development. A planning inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State allowed the second defendant's appeal against the decision of the claimant local authority to refuse planning permission. The Administrative Court allowed the authority's appeal against the inspector's decision on the basis that the inspector had taken an irrelevant consideration into account and had misunderstood or misapplied the authority's planning policy.
Company Voluntary winding up. The claimant sought the court's leave to bring proceedings to compel the ultimate parent company of a company in liquidation to honour a series of binding obligations which it had entered into by way of three separate letters of support. The Chancery Division, in refusing permission, held that the letters of support had not subjected the parent company to any enforceable obligation.
Injunction Variation or discharge. The defendant travellers illegally occupied land in the claimant local authority's area. The defendants' application for planning permission was refused and the parties agreed an injunction which provided that the defendants would leave the land after a 12 month grace period. Shortly before the expiry of that grace period, the defendants applied for either the suspension or variation of the injunction. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the application, but in the light of the, then current, extreme weather conditions, varied the expiry date of the injunction by 21 days.
Town and Country Planning Permission for development. The Administrative Court held that a planning inspector had erred by failing to consider separate planning decisions which had determined, in materially identical terms, the issue that had been between the parties and which the planning inspector had had to determine.
Sale of goods Breach of contract. The claimant sellers agreed to sell a vessel to the defendant buyer. The buyer failed to pay a deposit within time stipulated by the contract. The sellers treated the contract as being repudiated and sought to recover the deposit as a debt. The arbitration tribunal held that the sellers were not entitled to recover the deposit. In allowing the sellers' appeal, the Commercial Court held that, on its true construction, a memorandum of agreement between the parties had conferred a contractual right on the sellers to accept a repudiation of the contract and provided that the sellers might recover the amount of the deposit in any event.
European Union Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of the relevant provisions of Council Directive (EEC) 85-337 of 27 June 1985 (on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment), as amended by Council Directive (EC) 97-11 of 3 March 1997 (Directive 85-337). The request had been made in proceedings between Salzburger Flughafen GmbH (Salzburger Flughafen) and the Umweltsenat (Administrative Chamber for Environmental Matters) concerning the obligation to subject certain projects which expanded the infrastructure of Salzburg airport to an environmental impact assessment.
Town and country planning Appeal to Minister against refusal of permission for development. The claimant local planning authority refused planning permission for a development on farmland owned by the second and third defendants. The second and third defendants appealed to the Secretary of State, who granted planning permission. The local authority issued a claim under s288 of the . The claimant authority contended that the Secretary of State's inspector had not given sufficient weight to their local interim planning policy and that he had misapplied national guidance. The second and third defendants made an application to have the claim struck out. The Administrative Court found the authority's grounds unarguable: (i) weight was a matter for the inspector and his decision was not irrational and had been fully reasoned, and (ii) whilst construction of the national policy was a matter of law, it was not to be construed as a statute. The claim would be struck out.
Town and country planning Permission for development. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the Secretary of State's appeal, held that the judge had been wrong to find that a planning inspector had failed in his reasons to adequately address submissions made by the claimant that human rights had been breached by a refusal to grant planning permission.
Contract Construction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, on a proper construction of a contract between the parties for the supply of catering and cleaning services to hospitals, the judge had erred in finding that the defendant NHS trust's conduct in allocating service failure points had constituted a breach of its obligations to co-operate and act in good faith since the judge had been wrong to imply such a term into the contract.
Contract Construction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal of administrators, held that, in the interpretation of a master agreement between two companies in the Lehman Brothers group, which had incorporated the terms of the ISDA 2002 Master Agreement, a side letter would form part of the process of valuation of close-out amounts.