R (on the application of TWS) v Manchester City Council

Town and country planning Permission for development. The claimant challenged the local authority's decision to grant planning permission to a football club to build a stadium. The Administrative Court held that the grant had not been unlawful absent conditions limiting the days and times that the stadium could be used, and in relation to the noise levels. Further, the local authority had been correct in holding that an environment impact assessment had not been required.

Krizan and others v Slovenska inspekcia zivotneho prostredia

European Union Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, signed in Aarhus on 25 June 1998 (the Aarhus Convention), of arts 191(1) and (2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and 267 TFEU, of Council Directive (EEC) 85-337 (on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment), as amended by Directive (EC) 2003-35 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and of Council Directive (EC) 96-61 (concerning integrated pollution prevention and control), as amended by Regulation (EC) 166-2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The request had been made in proceedings between, on the one hand, Mr Krizan and 43 other appellants, natural persons, residents of the town of Pezinok, as well as Mesto Pezinok (the town of Pezinok), and, on the other, the Slovak Environment Inspection, concerning the lawfulness of decisions of the administrative authority authorising the construction and operation by Ekologicka skladka, the intervener in the main proceedings, of a landfill site for waste.

*R (on the application of Gray) v Southwark London Borough and others

Town and country planning Planning permission. The claimant sought permission to apply for judicial review and to appeal against decisions of a local authority and a judge with respect to substantial redevelopment of London Bridge station and the area surrounding it. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in refusing permission, held that the grounds of appeal did not establish a real prospect of success, taken individually or collectively.

R (on the application of Long) v Monmouthshire County Council

Town and country planning Development consent. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claimant's application for judicial review, held that the local authority's decision to grant planning permission for the demolition of an existing cattle market and the construction of a new library and supermarket had not been unlawful.

Braithwaite v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Compulsory purchase Compulsory purchase order. The claimant's property had been the subject of a compulsory purchase order (CPO). An inspector, instructed by the defendant Secretary of State, had approved the recommendation of compulsory purchase of the property. The Secretary of State subsequently accepted that recommendation. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claimant's application to quash the CPO, held, inter alia, that there was compelling social need and the CPO had been proportionate in the circumstances.

*R v Ezeemo and others

Criminal Law Trial. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing various appeals against conviction for offences of transporting waste, specified in art 36(1) of Council Regulation (EC) 1013-2006 (on shipments of waste), contrary to reg 23 of the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 2007, held, amongst other things, that the judge's directions had been sufficient in law and had been fairly presented and that the offence created by reg23 of the UK Regulations was one of strict liability.

R (on the application of Lyon) v Cambridge City Council

Judicial review Application for judicial review. The claimant brought a claim against a local authority and applied for permission to apply for judicial review to challenge the authority's decision to grant full planning permission to an interested party for the demolition of an existing sports pavilion and the relocation and erection of a new sports pavilion. The main issue was whether the demolition of the old pavilion and the construction of the new pavilion was an 'urban development project' within the meaning of para 10(b) of Sch2 to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011, . The Administrative court held that it was not and dismissed the claimant's application for permission to apply for judicial review of the decision. However, the court refused the interested party's application to strike out the main claim.

*Stannard (t/a Wyvern Tyres) v Gore

Nuisance Escape in consequence of non-natural use of land. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, considered a case in which a fire had begun on the defendant's premises, where a large number of vehicle tyres were kept, and escaped onto the claimant's premises, causing severe damage. In allowing the defendant's appeal against a finding of the Recorder, the court held that Rylands v Fletcher liability had not been established and hence no negligence had been proved.

* R (on the application of Trail Riders Fellowship and another) v Dorset County Council

Highway Definitive map. The Administrative Court held that as the claimants had not complied strictly with the map requirements of to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the lack of compliance was not de minimis, their challenge to the defendant local authority's refusal for modification orders to the definitive map and statement would be dismissed.

Anslow and others v Norton Aluminium Ltd

Nuisance Smell. The claimants had complained that the defendant company, Norton Aluminium Ltd, had caused nuisance by the emission of odour, noise, and particulate matter-dust from its foundry to which the claimants lived close by to as residential residents. The Queen's Bench Division held, inter alia, that the claimants had failed to establish a legal nuisance by way of dust and noise emanating from the foundry but had established an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of their properties by reason of odour for a period beginning in mid 2003 and ending in mid 2010.