Re L (a child)

Family Proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The mother gave birth to AM shortly after starting a three year prison sentence. The local authority obtained an interim care order and the mother appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division allowed the appeal on the basis that the relationship between AM and the mother should have been preserved pending a final adjudication of the issues in the care proceedings.

*WHA Ltd and another v Revenue and Customs

Value added tax Input tax. The first appellant (WHA), was an English company which had contracted with Viscount, a Gibraltar based company and the reinsurer of UK Motor Breakdown Insurance (MBI) policies, to instruct garages in the UK to carry out any works required to be effected under the insurance policies. The proceedings concerned the effectiveness of a scheme designed to minimise the overall liability to VAT of a group of companies involved in MBI. The purpose of the scheme was to enable the VAT element of the cost of repairs to be recovered by one or other of the members of a group of companies to which an MBI insurer belonged, thereby reducing costs and enabling the insurer to offer lower premiums. Following the implementation of the scheme in 1998, the Revenue refused the claims made by WHA and Viscount for the repayment of tax. In 2007, the Court of Appeal held in favour of the Revenue that the scheme was abusive. On WHA and Viscount's appeal, the Supreme Court upheld that decision and held that there had been no supply of repair services by the garages in question to the first appellant for the purposes of its business, on which WHA might claim deduction of input tax.

Re CB (a child) (adoption proceedings: lack of care order)

Adoption Order. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that it was legally permissible for a local authority to present a case to its adoption panel and issue an application for a placement for adoption order in circumstances where the child was not subject to an interim care order but was simply accommodated under s20 of the .

R (on the application of Prideaux) v Buckinghamshire County Council

Town and country planning Permission for development. The claimant contested the grant of planning permission for a waste facility and access road, the construction of which would have detrimental impact upon the environment. The defendant local authority granted planning permission, and Natural England subsequently granted derogation licences allowing detrimental work to take place. At a later date, the licences were quashed by consent, but not before detrimental work had already taken place in respect of two protected species of bats. The claimant brought judicial review proceedings claiming that the grant of planning permission had been unlawful. Permission to proceed with judicial review was allowed but the claim was dismissed. The local authority was not required to perform the function of Natural England. The authority had not acted contrary to Government policy and it had provided adequate reasons for the granting the permission.

R (on the application of Nash) v Barnet London Borough Council

Judicial review Challenge to validity of public authority's decision. The claimant sought permission to apply for judicial review of the local authority's decision and impending decision to outsource its functions and services. The authority contended that the claim was out of time because it had effectively challenged decisions taken in 2010 and 2011. The Administrative Court, in refusing permission, held that, with one exception, the claims were out of time. It further held that the judgment as to whether the provisions of the resulting contract had adequately addressed the interests of groups with a protected characteristic had been for the authority and not the court to make.

Hunt and others v Optima (Cambridge) Ltd and others

Building Construction. The Technology and Construction Court considered a claim by long leaseholders in a block of flats, against, among others, the firm of architects responsible for developing the flats and the company employed to inspect the premises with a view to providing certificates to potential purchasers to confirm the quality of the construction. The court held that the repairing covenant covered, among others, the claimants, and that the architects had owed a duty of care to the claimants. The costs of remedial work would be allowed, as well as damages for each claimant proportionate to their loss.

Re C (a child) (adoption proceedings: change of circumstances)

Adoption Order. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that a judge, in refusing a father's application for permission to oppose an adoption order, had displayed no error of law, no error of approach and had not exercised a flawed discretion.

*X County Council v a mother and others

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division considered the case of two boys, aged three and one, who came from a family in which Huntington's disease (HD) was said to be present. The boys were the subject of interim care orders and were likely to be placed for adoption. The court held that it was not in the welfare interests of either child for the court to order testing to establish whether they were carrying the gene for HD.

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

Town and country planning Permission for development. The interested party, H Ltd, operated a waste composting site. The claimant lived near the site. Following the quashing of various planning permissions due to the fact that para13 of Sch 2 to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, did not properly implement European Union law, with the result that applications required to be screened, H Ltd continued to operate the site in the manner that would have been permitted by them. The Secretary of State made positive screening directions and accordingly, there were before the respondent authority three live applications for planning permission which would, if granted, operate with retrospective effect. The purported environmental statement submitted by H Ltd was inadequate and 14 months later, the authority decided that H Ltd ought to have a further three months to present a complete environmental statement and the issue of whether an enforcement notice should be issued was withdrawn from the agenda. The claimant sought to challenge the decision by way of judicial review proceedings. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claim, held that there was no duty on the authority under EU law immediately to issue an enforcement notice in the circumstances and, notwithstanding the court's initial misgivings, on the evidence, the authority had reached a fair, reasonable and proportionate decision on the relevant issue.

Hogan and others v Minister for Social and Family Affairs and others

European Union Employment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 1 and 8 of Directive (EC) 2008-94 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 (on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer). The request had been made in proceedings between Mr Hogan and other former employees of Waterford Crystal Ltd (Waterford Crystal), the plaintiffs in the main proceedings, and the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Ireland and the Attorney General concerning the transposition of that Directive.