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.
Occupier's liability Common duty of care. The claimant had fallen from a raised footpath into the road and sustained injuries. The accident had happened at night, on a badly lit road and after the claimant had been drinking. She successfully issued proceedings alleging breach of duty against the second defendant local authority. The judge found that there had been a real possibility of danger because of the fencing arrangements around the raised area. The authority appealed to the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, which allowed its appeal because the evidence had not warranted the finding that the judge had made.
Judicial review Application for judicial review. The claimant brought judicial review proceedings to challenge the decision of a judge in the defendant county court to the effect that his application for an oral hearing of his application for permission to appeal against an order had been out of time and hence an oral hearing could not be listed. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claim, held that it was clear that the judge had had jurisdiction to make such an order, that it could not be established that the judge had acted in complete disregard of her duties and that it could not be said that there had been some fundamental departure from the correct procedure.
Misrepresentation Fraudulent misrepresentation. The claimant company and its owner, Mr Lisitsin, had invested 2m in a project to purchase land for development that had been arranged by Mr Maggs, a company in which he was a shareholder, and Mr Balfour. The claimant had invested as a consequence of the inducement of Doctor Shadrin and a company of which he was the owner and Mr Balfour was a director. The claimant had not been told the full extent of the purchase structure and that additional profit was to be made as a consequence of that structure in which it would not receive a share. Ultimately, the scheme failed and the claimant received no returns on its investment. In proceedings brought for fraudulent misrepresentation, the judge found that the tort of deceit was proved and that Dr Shadrin and his company had acted as agents on behalf of Mr Maggs, his company and Mr Balfour. All five defendants were found jointly and severally liable. The defendants appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed that appeal, holding that the judge had not erred in her findings that the tort of deceit had been proved or that there had been a relationship of agency.
Contract Construction. The defendant had taken out a loan facility with the claimant lender. The defendant refinanced the loan and made an early repayment of the facility. It did not pay the 'prepayment' fee. The claimant commenced proceedings seeking that fee, which amounted to some US$17.5m. The judge dismissed the claim. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal finding that, on the true construction of the facility agreement, the prepayment fee had not been payable in the circumstances.
Landlord and tenant Assured tenancy. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendant tenant's appeal against the decision of a county court judge overturning an earlier decision dismissing the claimant landlords' claim for possession. The court rejected the defendant's contention that a payment made at the commencement of the tenancy, pursuant to a requirement in the tenancy agreement that the first six months rent were to be paid in advance, had to be treated as a 'tenancy deposit' for the purposes of s21(8) of the .
Landlord and tenant Covenant. The Chancery Division refused the claimant's application for an interim injunction preventing the defendant trust from granting consent for a basement extension unless and until certain steps had been taken. The court held that the instant action was not a proper means by which to resolve the dispute, and no grounds had been shown for interfering with the decision-making process of the trust. Summary judgment was given for the defendant trust.
Investment business Investment management agreements. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that there was nothing unlawful under English law for a company to undertake a process of buying votes of the holders of notes or other securities issued by the company. Accordingly, a resolution passed by a minority of noteholders at an extraordinary meeting had not been unlawful as a result of the defendant companies making cash payments to noteholders who had voted in favour of the passing of the resolution.
Conflict of laws Jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld a determination of a preliminary issue that an agency contract between the claimant and the defendant company had been governed by Spanish law in the absence of any express agreement between the parties as to the choice of law. The claimant had failed to show an implied choice of English law as a matter of reasonable certainty.
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.