Town and Country Planning Permission for development. The Administrative Court held that a planning inspector had erred by failing to consider separate planning decisions which had determined, in materially identical terms, the issue that had been between the parties and which the planning inspector had had to determine.
European Union Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of the relevant provisions of Council Directive (EEC) 85-337 of 27 June 1985 (on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment), as amended by Council Directive (EC) 97-11 of 3 March 1997 (Directive 85-337). The request had been made in proceedings between Salzburger Flughafen GmbH (Salzburger Flughafen) and the Umweltsenat (Administrative Chamber for Environmental Matters) concerning the obligation to subject certain projects which expanded the infrastructure of Salzburg airport to an environmental impact assessment.
Town and country planning Appeal to Minister against refusal of permission for development. The claimant local planning authority refused planning permission for a development on farmland owned by the second and third defendants. The second and third defendants appealed to the Secretary of State, who granted planning permission. The local authority issued a claim under s288 of the . The claimant authority contended that the Secretary of State's inspector had not given sufficient weight to their local interim planning policy and that he had misapplied national guidance. The second and third defendants made an application to have the claim struck out. The Administrative Court found the authority's grounds unarguable: (i) weight was a matter for the inspector and his decision was not irrational and had been fully reasoned, and (ii) whilst construction of the national policy was a matter of law, it was not to be construed as a statute. The claim would be struck out.
Town and country planning Permission for development. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the Secretary of State's appeal, held that the judge had been wrong to find that a planning inspector had failed in his reasons to adequately address submissions made by the claimant that human rights had been breached by a refusal to grant planning permission.
Practice Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The defendant granted two leases to the claimant for a restaurant and flats above it. The defendant sought payment of purported arrears from the claimant, and following the claimant's failure to pay, took possession of the restaurant. The claimant brought proceedings claiming relief from forfeiture. Those proceedings were dismissed. The claimant subsequently claimed damages for wrongful forfeiture and subsequently applied to strike out part of the defendant's amended defence and counter-claim. The defendant opposed the application, contending that, as the claimant had failed to appeal against the judgment dismissing its original claim, it was estopped from bringing the instant claim, which was an abuse of process. In granting the claimant's application, the Chancery Division held that there had been no abuse of process and that estoppel did not apply. A tenant who brought an unsuccessful application for the relief of forfeiture was not necessarily acting oppressively if he later contested the lawfulness of the forfeiture
Contract Construction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal of administrators, held that, in the interpretation of a master agreement between two companies in the Lehman Brothers group, which had incorporated the terms of the ISDA 2002 Master Agreement, a side letter would form part of the process of valuation of close-out amounts.
European Union Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Council Directive (EEC) 93-13 (on unfair terms in consumer contracts). The request had been made in proceedings between Mr Aziz and the Caixa d'Estalvis de Catalunya, Tarragona i Manresa (Catalunyacaixa), concerning the validity of certain terms of a mortgage loan agreement entered into by those parties.
Capital gains tax Computation of chargeable assets. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the appeal by Land Securities Ltd (the taxpayer) against the disallowance of its alleged capital loss by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners in respect of certain transactions which were part of a scheme entered into by the taxpayer which had generated short-term financing. The tribunal decided that taxpayer was not entitled to the capital loss it had claimed on the basis that the case came within the value shifting provisions of of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992, with the result that, pursuant to s30( 5) of the Act, the allowable loss otherwise arising by reason of s106 of that Act should be eliminated.
Attorney General of the Turks and Caicos Islands and another v Richardson (trustee in bankruptcy of Yellowstone Club World LLC)
Privy Council Underpayment of stamp duty. The Privy Council, in upholding the Court of Appeal of the Turks and Caicos Island's ruling that the Government had not been entitled to claim an interest in a property on which stamp duty had not been fully paid, held that the Registrar of Lands had unlawfully entered a restriction on dealings with the property at the Government's request.
Sex establishment Control. The defendant local authority refused to grant the claimant company a licence for premises to be used as a sexual entertainment venue. The claimant sought judicial review, relying on the fact that planning permission had been granted based on a planning report and amplified reasons given for the decision could not be relied on. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the amplified reasons could be relied on as they elucidated the original reasons, and that the planning permission and the planning report had not been mandatory considerations.