St Edmundsbury Borough Council and another v Reynolds and others

Town and country planning Enforcement of planning control. The defendant had been made the subject of an injunction under s187B of the which required her and others to rectify planning breaches. She appealed. The Queen's Bench Division allowed her appeal in part. With regard to her fear of her former husband who also owned the land, the judge had been correct to find that genuine fear was no justification for her inaction. However, the injunction was revoked in respect of her so far as it related to land which she neither owned nor controlled.

Skrytek v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others

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.

Westminster City Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another

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.

Re Simon Carves Ltd

Company Voluntary winding up. The claimant sought the court's leave to bring proceedings to compel the ultimate parent company of a company in liquidation to honour a series of binding obligations which it had entered into by way of three separate letters of support. The Chancery Division, in refusing permission, held that the letters of support had not subjected the parent company to any enforceable obligation.

Codling v Harlow

Landlord and tenant Lease. A tenant of a shop applied to the court under s24 of the for a new tenancy. The landlord opposed the application. The county court judge held, amongst other things, that the landlord would grant the tenant a new tenancy of the shop and that the tenant was at liberty to enforce the terms of an agreement by way of an application for an order for specific performance. In granting the landlord's appeal, the Chancery Division held that, on the fact, the judge had erred in coming to that decision. The relevant paragraph of the judge's order was set aside and the matter was remitted. The court agreed that a new tenancy under s29 of the Act could not be granted retrospectively but held that that did not mean that the agreed commencement date of the new tenancy had no legal effect.

Barratt Homes Ltd v Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig (Welsh Water)

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.

*R (on the application of Newhaven Port and Properties Ltd) v East Sussex County Council

Commons Registration. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal against a decision by the Administrative Court in which the judge held that registration of a beach as a town or village green pursuant to s15 of the was incompatible with the statutory powers and duties of Newhaven Port and Properties Ltd (NPP) as owner of the beach. The court held that whilst the court did not underestimate the consequences that registration of West Beach as a town or village green might have on the future discharge of NPP's statutory functions, those consequences did not provide a proper ground for holding that the land was not registrable.

*Parshall v Hackney

Land registration Rectification of register. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appellant's appeal against a decision of the High Court upholding a decision of a deputy adjudicator of the Land Registry refusing rectification of the register in respect of a disputed piece of land. In circumstances where the disputed land had been mistakenly included in the respondent's title (No 31), the court held that the previous owners of the appellant's land had not been dispossessed of the disputed land by the owners of No 31, and their possession of the disputed land during the relevant period was not 'adverse possession' within the meaning of the .

R (on the application of Jestin) v Dover Magistrates Court

Sentence Confiscation order. The claimant had been convicted of conspiracy to supply cannabis and had been made subject to a confiscation order in the sum of approximately 627,553 on the basis that he had sufficient assets to meet the order, namely a house valued at approximately 900,000. The claimant having missed the deadline for payment of the order, the magistrates' court refused an application for an adjournment and made a warrant of commitment. In dismissing the claimant's claim for judicial review of the decision to refuse the adjournment and to issue a warrant of commitment, the Administrative Court held that the claimant had not demonstrated that the justices had erred in their approach and that the claimant's submissions did not seem to have any substance.

Chasewood Park Residents Ltd v Kim and another

Landlord and tenant Lease. The defendants had acquired a share in the claimant company, which had been established to obtain the reversion in a flat complex. The company issued proceedings to recover the arrears of ground rent from them. The defendants contended that a letter prior to the acquisition of the reversion had represented that the ground rent would be extinguished. The judge held that the representation had not been relied on. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the defendants' appeal, held that the letter had not promised anything and it was unreasonable for the defendants to have relied on it.