*R (on the application of Woolley) v Cheshire East Borough Council

Town and country planning Permission for development. Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court (Manchester): The court gave a ruling on the approach which a planning authority should take in connection with deciding whether to grant planning permission where reg3(4) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994, , was a relevant consideration. The authority, in the instant judicial review, had breached reg3(4) in granting planning permission for a development on a site on which a bat roost was present.

Land Securities plc and others v Fladgate Fielder (a firm)

Practice Summary judgment. Chancery Divsion: The defendant firm's application for summary judgment, pursuant to CPR 24.2, against the claimant developers was granted where the claimants' claim for abuse of process on the ground that the defendant had initiated judicial review proceedings on the basis of an illegitmate motive had no real prospect of success.

Colour Quest Ltd and others v Total Downstream UK plc and others

Negligence Duty of care. In dealing with issues of liability arising out of the Buncefield explosion in December 2005, the court ruled, inter alia, that where there had been negligence on the part of the defendant, the defence of consent to Rylands v Fletcher was not available.

*R (on the application of Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig (Welsh Water)) v Environment Agency

Public health Sewerage. Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court: The court ruled that the claimant, as a public authority, was not precluded in all circumstances from reviewing a decision under s101A of the and, thereafter, withdrawing or revoking that decision, but that it, having held appointment under that Act, would be permitted to revoke a decision which engaged rights and expectations when the circumstances were such that the decision would be susceptible to judicial review on ordinary public law principles of illegality, irrationality or unfairness, or where new circumstances compelled a revocation. In the instant case, it was adjudged that the claimant had failed to establish any legal basis upon which it could have been held as entitled to withdraw or revoke its decision to accept a duty under s101A(1) of the 1991 Act to provide a public sewer in respect of Freshwater East, Pembroke, Wales.

Heronslea (Mill Hill) Ltd v Kwik-Fit Properties Ltd

Landlord and tenant Lease. Queen's Bench Division: The judge had been entitled to dismiss the landlord's claim for a declaration that it was permitted to enter upon the premises occupied by the tenant for the purpose of drilling boreholes and taking samples.

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

Town and country planning Planning authority. Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court: An application by the claimant for an order quashing three planning permissions granted by the defendant local planning authority was allowed on the basis that the relevant regulations had not implemented the Council Directive(EEC)85-337 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.

*R v Kelleher

Sentence Imprisonment. Court of Appeal, Criminal Division: Where the defendant had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to deposit controlled waste unlawfully contrary to s33 of the and had been sentenced to 14 months' imprisonment, the sentence was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, since, inter alia, the unlawful depositing of waste had been carefully organised and had continued over an extended period.

*R (on the application of Buglife, The Invertebrate Conservation Trust) v Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation

CostsJudicial review Order for costsCosts of application. Court of Appeal, Civil Division: The court gave guidance as to the relevant legal principles relating to protective costs orders as well as the correct procedure to be followed at first instance and the Court of Appeal.

Lambson Fine Chemicals Ltd v Merlion Capital Housing Ltd

On the evidence, there had been no actionable misrepresentation on the part of the claimant vendor of land since it was known that the land was contaminated with chemicals and although a more specific question could have been asked about the contamination of the central area of that land that did not mean that there had been any fraud or deceit.

R (on the application of OSS Group Ltd) v Environment Agency and others