Kemsley v Barclays Bank Plc and others

Conflict of laws Foreign proceedings. The Chancery Division dismissed the applicant bankrupt's application for an anti-suit injunction in respect of proceedings brought by the respondent bank in the United States of America. The court held, inter alia, that it could not be regarded as oppressive or unfair or in any way improper for the question whether the bank should be allowed to maintain its action in the US on an English debt or whether those proceedings should be stayed or dismissed on the basis that the applicant had become discharged from his debts under the British statute, or indeed whether there should be any restriction on enforcement on post-discharge assets, to be determined by the New York court.

R (on the application of Watson) v Richmond London Borough Council and another

Town and country planning Permission for development. The interested party obtained planning permission for a proposed redevelopment of Twickenham rail station. The claimant applied for judicial review of the grant of planning permission on the basis, inter alia, that the defendant local authority had failed to take into account a material consideration in the form of a report (the TAP report). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal as the failure of the authority's planning committee to take the TAP report into account had not amounted to a breach of the statutory duty to have regard to material considerations.

*Loveridge v Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Lambeth

Landlord and tenant Eviction. The claimant had been a secure tenant of the local authority. While the claimant was on an extended holiday, the authority (which did not know of his absence) took possession of his flat and arranged to install a new tenant. The claimant issued proceedings seeking the payment of statutory damages for the loss of his right to occupy the flat. The judge ordered 90,500 damages be paid on the basis that it had to be assumed that the tenant's rights were for all purposes to be deemed to be those of a secure tenant, even after a hypothetical sale to a private landlord. The authority appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal, holding that the claimant's rights of occupation had, from the very grant of his secure tenancy, been vulnerable to being downgraded upon a sale by the authority to a private landlord and that downgrade could be taken into account in valuing a property for the purpose of s28 of the .

Kuppusamy v Mathankanna and another

Land registration Rectification of register. The defendant and the claimant were business partners and the former joint registered proprietors of a petrol station (the property). The second respondent bank held a charge over the property. The property was transferred from the joint names of the defendant and the claimant into the defendant's sole name. The deputy adjudicator upheld the claimant claim to rectify the register, having concluded that the transfer was a forgery. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal, held that there were no grounds to show that the deputy adjudicator's decision had been wrong.

R (on the application of Samuel Smith Old Brewery Tadcaster) v Selby District Council

Town and country planning Conservation area. The defendant local authority had granted itself planning permission for improvement to a town centre car park situated within a conservation area. The claimant opposed the planning permission and contended that the planning officer's report upon which the decision had been made was seriously flawed and the decision to grant planning permission was therefore unlawful. The Administrative Court rejected the criticisms of the planning officer's report, finding that the report contained a careful and lawful analysis of all relevant matters and the application for judicial review would therefore be dismissed.

Farrelly (M&E) Building Services Ltd v Byrne Brothers (Formwork) Ltd

Arbitration Adjudication. The defendant was the main contractor under a contract with London Underground Limited in respect of the refurbishment of Hammersmith Underground Station. The Queen's Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court allowed the claimant's application for summary judgment and held that, in the circumstances, the defendant had no real prospects of successfully defending the enforcement of the adjudicator's decision.

Hunt and another v Conway County Borough Council

Bankruptcy Trustee in bankruptcy. The Chancery Division considered appeals against the dismissal of applications for vesting orders made by the appellants. The first appellant had been the sole registered proprietor of a pier. The pier was subsequently vested in his trustee in bankruptcy who later disclaimed all interest in the pier. The court, in allowing the first appellant's appeal in part, considered SH's contention that the court had the power under s320 of the to make a vesting order in his favour in respect of that part of the pier that constituted his dwelling house and held that the judge's exercise of his discretion under s320(3) of that Act could not stand. SH's application would be remitted for reconsideration of the exercise of the discretion whether to make a vesting order in his favour.

*TSG Building Services plc v South Anglia Housing Ltd

Building contract Adjudication. The claimant and the defendant entered in to a contract for the provision by the defendant of a gas servicing and associated works programme. The claimant subsequently terminated the contract. The defendant referred a dispute to adjudication in respect of its entitlement to damages for breach of contract. The adjudicator made an award in favour of the defendant. The defendant applied to enforce the adjudicator's award. The claimant applied for various declarations. The Queen's Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court held that an adjudicator had jurisdiction to resolve all the issues put before him. It further held that, on the proper interpretation of the contract, the defendant had no entitlement to damages for breach of contract. Accordingly, the adjudicator had erred in his decision.

Consolidated Finance Ltd v Collins and another (Office of Fair Trading intervening)

Consumer credit Agreement. The defendant individuals had entered into agreements with a company in order for that company, subject to interest and charges, to secure the annulment of bankruptcy orders made against them by the payment of sums to the defendants' creditors. Upon the making of the annulment orders, the liabilities to the company were paid by the claimant company, an associate entity, to whom the defendants became liable with their indebtedness being secured against their homes. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the agreements between the claimant and the defendants had amounted to a refinancing agreement under s11(1)(c) of the and, accordingly, were unenforceable on the ground of failures to comply with the statutory provisions.

Norbrook Laboratories Ltd and others v Carlisle City Council

Town and country planning Trees. The claimants wished to fell trees on land forming part of their wider estate. The claimants contended that the land was subject to Forestry Commission supervision. The local authority did not agree on the basis that they considered the land to be public open space by virtue of an historic right of free access that had been granted many years previously. The claimants contended that the public right of access had lapsed by virtue of the non-registration of rights in common. The authority made a tree preservation order as the only method of preventing uncontrolled felling of the trees. The claimants issued judicial review proceedings, contending, inter alia, that the tree preservation order was inappropriate because the land was not land over which the public had access rights, and-or that the making of the tree preservation order was unnecessary or had been procedurally unfair. The Administrative Court dismissed the application finding that the rights of access were conceptually distinguished from the rights in common, thus the right of access had not been extinguished for want of registration. A tree preservation order was the only appropriate mechanism to prevent the uncontrolled felling of the trees, and, in the circumstances of the present case, the making of that order had not been procedurally flawed.