Oxford Diocesan Board of Finance v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another
Town and country planning Permission for development. The claimant had been refused planning permission for the development of dwellings. The Secretary of State refused its appeal. The Administrative Court allowed the claimant's application under s288 of the on the ground that the Secretary of State had failed to take into account a ministerial statement which referred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's call for action for growth which stated that the 'planning system has a key role to play in this, by ensuring that the sustainable development needed to support economic growth is able to proceed as easily as possible'.
* Rusedespred OOD v Direktor na Direktsia 'Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto' – Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite,
European Union VAT. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Council Directive (EC) 2006-112 (on the common system of value added tax). The request had been made in proceedings between Rusedespred OOD (Rusedespred) and the Director of the Appeals and Enforcement Management Directorate, Varna, at the Central Administration of the National Revenue Agency, concerning the latter's refusal to refund to Rusedespred VAT invoiced by Rusedespred to its customer, after the tax authority had refused the customer the right to deduct that VAT on the ground that the supply at issue had not been taxable.
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.
Nuisance Escape in consequence of non-natural use of land. The Chancery Division considered issues of liability in respect of the claimants' claims for, inter alia, nuisance and negligence arising from the escape of CO gas from land owned by the defendant local authority on the site of a former colliery.
Arbitration Adjudication. The Technology and Construction Court held, in granting the claimant company's application for summary judgment, that the defendant company had no real prospect of successfully defending the enforcement of two adjudication decisions, where papers had been correctly submitted and where there was nothing to prevent a party from giving two notices of adjudication.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.