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.
Local government Statutory duty. Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court: The resolutions of the defendant local authority which, effectively, had been to reduce its funding in respect of its Welfare Rights and Advice Services was unlawful and, thereupon, quashed, on the basis that the relevant criteria under three statutes, as amended, namely the the and the Sex Discrimination Act 1976, had not been met. It had been thrust upon the authority, in the instant case, to have had 'due regard' to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, and, further, the need to promote equality of opportunity, when it had been considering the question of funding.
European Community Intellectual property rights. Court of Justice of the European Communities: The Court made a preliminary ruling on the concept of extraction, in the sense of the physical transfer of data, in the context of art7 of Council Directive (EC)96-9 (on the legal protection of databases) and on the concept of a substantial part, evaluated qualitatively or quantitatively, of the contents of a database in the same context.
*Morgan and another v Hinton Organics (Wessex) Ltd, Coalition for Access to Justice for the Environment (CAJE) intervening
Costs Order for costs. Court of Appeal, Civil Division: In allowing the appeal of the claimants in respect of a costs order following the discharge of an interim injunction obtained in their favour; and in allowing the defendant's appeal against the exclusion of their expert from giving evidence, the Court made observations in relation to protective costs orders and private interests, having regard to theUNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the Aarhus Convention).
Landlord and tenant Lease. Court of Appeal, Civil Division: The court held that a lease had been surrendered by operation of law where, inter alia, after the defendant tenants had left the property a member of the claimant landlord's family had moved possessions into and stayed in the property.
Landlord and tenant Rent. Chancery Division: In proceedings brought pursuant to of the Arbitration Act 1996, a rent review clause (in a lease under which business premises were let to the defendant tenant), which referred to a hypothetical lease in calculating the rent due, was to be construed according to the claimant landlords' contended construction, as its interpretation advanced the commercial common sense of the matter.
Nuisance Creation of nuisance. Queen's Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court: The court ruled that the first defendant had been liable to the claimants in negligence and nuisance for loss and damage caused by flooding, to include the cost of necessary remedial work including the cost of abating the nuisance.
For the purposes of of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, the relevant premises were to be ascertained in an objective way, disregarding the disposal concerned. Many factors could be relevant in determining the extent of the relevant premises. The provisions of s 1(2) of the 1987 Act were then applied to those premises to determine whether they were premises to which Pt 1 of the Act applied.
Ordinary possession of land was 'adverse possession' so far as the person out of possession and the were concerned. The focus was not on the nature of the possession but on the capacity of the person in possession. Accordingly where, as in the instant case, a mortgagee had remained in exclusive possession of the mortgaged property for more than 12 years after the limitation period began to run, he was in 'adverse possession' of it for the purposes of the 1980 Act.
A declaration made, by a landlord, in the form of para 8 of Sch 2 to the Regulatory Reform (Business Tenancies) (England and Wales) Order2003, SI2003-3096, was 'a declaration in the form, or substantially in the form, set out in paragraph 7' of the 2003 Order. The converse could not be true as a para 7 declaration would not provide a tenant with the protection afforded by a declaration made under para 8. In the instant case the landlord's erroneous making of a declaration in accordance with para 8 of the 2003 Order, instead of in accordance with para 7, had not thwarted the essential purpose of making such a declaration, and, accordingly, to of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 had been validly excluded from the licences agreed by the parties.