Criminal law Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division dismissed a defendant's appeal against conviction for dishonestly making false representations contrary to s2 of the in respect of a motor insurance claim, in circumstances where the defendant criticised evidence that had been admitted, the form of the indictment and the prosecution's cross examination. The Court rejected the defendant's contention that the conviction was unsafe.
Town and Country Planning Development. The claimant was a gypsy. She was refused retrospective planning permission for the site on which she and her extended family, which included small children, were living. An inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State dismissed the claimant's appeal. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the inspector's decision as it was clear that the inspector had had the children's best interests at the forefront of her mind and she had been fully entitled to conclude that the dismissal of the appeal against the refusal of planning permission would not have a disproportionate impact upon the claimant and her family.
Family Proceedings Interim care order. The claimant brought judicial review proceedings against a local authority after they removed her children from the care of their paternal grandparents and placed them into foster care. The claimant contended that the local authority's decision had been taken unlawfully because of their failure to consult. The Administrative Court found in favour of the claimant, finding that the decision to remove the children had been unlawful for lack of consultation. Moreover, there was an argument for quashing the decision, but in the circumstances of the instant case, declaratory relief was the appropriate remedy.
Town and country planning Development. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claimant's application pursuant to of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, held that the planning inspector had not misconstrued the 'waste hierarchy' policy in allowing an appeal against a decision to refuse planning permission for a proposed waste treatment facility.
Family proceedings Care proceedings. Parents travelled to Ireland so that their child, subsequently born there, would not be taken into care by the local authority responsible for the mother's older children. The newborn became the subject of Irish care proceedings. The mother returned to England and sought the transfer of those proceedings to the Family Division, together with the child. The court held that the transfer was in the newborn's best interests and that the same local authority would be responsible for all of the children and not the local authority into which the mother had relocated.
Sex discrimination Discrimination. The claimant life prisoner applied for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's policy that male prisoners could be subjected to a rub-down search conducted by a female prison officer other than when his case fell within exceptions based on religious or cultural grounds. The Administrative court dismissed the claim on the basis that the policy was not discriminatory and did not breach either art8 or art14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Town and County Planning Permission for development. A planning inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State allowed the second defendant's appeal against the decision of the claimant local authority to refuse planning permission. The Administrative Court allowed the authority's appeal against the inspector's decision on the basis that the inspector had taken an irrelevant consideration into account and had misunderstood or misapplied the authority's planning policy.
Housing Persons in need of care and attention. The claimant, an Albanian national, brought judicial review proceedings in respect of the defendant local authority's failure to assess her son's needs for the purposes of providing accommodation and support under s17 of the . In allowing the claim, the Administrative Court held that the authority had acted unlawfully in failing to take steps to reassess the extent to which the claimant's child had been in need in the period following the change in accommodation position of the claimant, up until when proceedings had been issued and there had been a real prejudice to the claimant and her child through the authority's failure to do so. Accordingly, the authority would be ordered to carry out a reassessment of the needs of the claimant's child for the purposes of s17 of the 1989 Act.
Nuisance Sewer. The claimant property developer commenced proceedings against the defendant sewerage undertaker in nuisance, trespass to land and negligence arising from the defendant's refusal, in breach of its statutory duty under s106 of the to permit the claimant to connect to the public sewer. The Queen's Bench Division held, inter alia, that the claimant was entitled to pursue its claims in nuisance and trespass to land. The defendant appealed and the claimant cross-appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal as, inter alia, the claims for damages in nuisance and trespass could not succeed.
Employment Disability. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the employment tribunal had correctly dismissed the employee academic's claim for disability discrimination as it had correctly applied the law of the duty to make reasonable adjustments.