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.
Conflict of laws Tort. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against a finding that the claimants' allegation of bribery against the defendants was governed by Russian law. On the facts, Russian law was the applicable law, it had not been displaced by English law, and accordingly the judge had been right to dismiss the claim.
Adoption Dispensing with consent of parent or guardian. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, on an application by a local authority for a placement order in respect of a child, the judge had been wrong to acknowledge that the paternal grandmother had been an option for the child's care but would need to be investigated by the local authority, and then proceed to make the placement order. It was settled law that, when considering the making of a placement order, the court had to consider whether the welfare throughout the child's life required adoption as oppose to something short of adoption.
Housing Homeless person. The claimant had used a counterfeit passport to obtain social housing from the defendant local authority. When her deception was discovered, the authority served her with a notice to quit which was upheld on review. The claimant's subsequent lawful application for accommodation was refused on the basis that she had become intentionally homeless. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed her appeal on the ground that the authority's review officer had made two errors of law in his determination. The matter was referred back to the authority for a fresh decision.
Road traffic Motor vehicle. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the claimant's claim for damages for personal injury arising out of a road traffic accident, held that the accident had been the fault entirely of the claimant in stepping before the first defendant's van when he had had no chance of avoiding her.
Negligence Causation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the first and second claimants' appeals against findings of liability made against them following a road traffic accident in which the claimant had been injured, but, in allowing part of the first defendant's appeal, held that the judge had mischaracterised the contribution of the second defendant to the accident and therefore re-apportioned liability.
Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The appellant 15 year old boy had wanted to give evidence at care proceedings which were being conducted with respect to him. He expressed his desire to return to his mother in his written application to give evidence. The judge held that any benefit she would obtain from his evidence would be outweighed by the detriment to him of giving evidence. A care order was made. The boy appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing his appeal, held that a child did have the right to be heard in proceedings conducted in England but did not have the right to give evidence. Further, there was no rebuttable presumption that the mature child's wishes should prevail in considering an application for a care order.