Landlord and tenant Assured tenancy. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendant tenant's appeal against the decision of a county court judge overturning an earlier decision dismissing the claimant landlords' claim for possession. The court rejected the defendant's contention that a payment made at the commencement of the tenancy, pursuant to a requirement in the tenancy agreement that the first six months rent were to be paid in advance, had to be treated as a 'tenancy deposit' for the purposes of s21(8) of the .
Town and Country Planning Development consent. The defendant local planning authority granted development consent based on an Environmental Impact Assessment screening process that had been conducted in June 2011. The claimant opposed the grant of development consent for nearby land. The claimant contended that the June 2011 screening process had been flawed. The authority admitted to conducting a flawed process and carried out a second screening process that also concluded that the development was not an EIA development. In December 2012, two subsequent planning permissions were granted in respect of the same site. These subsequent permissions had been based on screening processes conducted in August 2012 and November 2012. The claimant issued two applications for judicial review, one concerning the August 2011 permission and the other concerning the two permissions granted in 2012. The essence of both claims was that the screening opinions had been unlawful. Aside from the admitted flaws in the June 2011 screening process, the Administrative Court held that the authority had otherwise conducted impeccable screening processes and the claim for judicial review in respect of the December 2012 permissions would be dismissed. Further, although the August 2011 permission had been granted unlawfully and the second screening opinion could not remedy a flawed process. In the circumstances of the instant case, the court would not exercise its discretion to quash the August 2011 planning permission.
Landlord and tenant Covenant. The Chancery Division refused the claimant's application for an interim injunction preventing the defendant trust from granting consent for a basement extension unless and until certain steps had been taken. The court held that the instant action was not a proper means by which to resolve the dispute, and no grounds had been shown for interfering with the decision-making process of the trust. Summary judgment was given for the defendant trust.
Building contract Construction. The Technology and Construction Court considered the wording of documents relating to a contract between the parties to construct hydro-electric facilities in Scotland. The court held that a declaration would be made stating that to achieve completion of the second section of the works, the defendant company would be required to undertake certain engineering work.
Town and Country Planning Planning permission. The defendant local authority granted the interested party two planning permissions for a biomass renewable energy plant and a combined heat and power plant. The claimant applied for judicial review on the basis that a further screening opinion under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, should have been carried out. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division dismissed the claimant's appeal against the judge's decision to dismiss her application. There was no reason to interfere with the judge's findings, which had been properly open to him in the circumstances of the instant case.
Landlord and tenant Repair. The claimant landlord brought a dilapidations claim against the tenant in which it alleged breach of a repair covenant of a lease in respect of its property and sought to recover the cost of repairs to the property. The Technology and Construction Court held that, on the facts, the claimant was entitled to recover most of the sums in issue.
Human rights Right to respect for private and family life. The appellant opposed an order for the felling of a tree on the basis that it would interfere with his rights to respect for his home and private life under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In particular, he relied on his particular fixation with the tree due to his severe and chronic obsessive compulsive disorder. A judge held that the claimant had no proprietary interest in the relevant property. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the judge had not been provided with relevant case law, enabling him to follow the proper process and remitted the matter to the county court.
Building contract Arbitration. The Technology and Construction Court, in proceedings brought pursuant to a building contract, made a declaration that the adjudicator had made a 'temporary binding' decision as to the date of practical completion and refused to stay enforcement of the judgment sum pending the decisions in two subsequent adjudications. Consequently, summary judgment was entered for the claimant.
Arbitration Award. The proceedings concerned a dispute in respect of the construction of a medical centre. Following an arbitration in which the arbitrator found for the defendants, the claimant company applied for leave to appeal the decision of the arbitrator on two issues. In dismissing the application, the Technology and Construction Court held that the claimant's first question in the appeal did not raise an issue of general public importance, and that the arbitrator's decision in respect of the second issue had not obviously been wrong.
European Union Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art3(4) and (5) of Council Directive (EC) 2001-42 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 (on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment). The request had been made in the course of proceedings between L and M, a municipality, concerning the legal validity of a building plan prepared by M without an environmental assessment, as required by that directive, having been carried out.