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.
Judicial review Application for judicial review. The Administrative Court, in dismissing a claim for judicial review of the defendant authority's decision to approve its draft Council Tax Reduction Scheme, held that the reasons put forward by the claimants in support of the contention that the consultation in relation to the draft scheme contained insufficient or misleading information were not made out and that, on the evidence, it was clear that the authority had had due regard to the impact of its proposals on persons with 'protected characteristics' such as children and disabled people, as required by s149 of the .
Building contract Construction. The defendants had agreed to purchase a property that was being constructed by the claimant. There were a number of snagging issues, which were dealt with by way of supplemental agreement, which entitled the claimants to retain part of the purchase price until the outstanding issues had been resolved. The issues were not resolved and the defendants did not pay the balance. The claimants issued proceedings, which were dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in giving the supplemental agreement its true interpretation, allowed the appeal, finding that the claimant had been entitled to payment subject to a right of set off and remitted the matter for determination of the loss and damage suffered by the defendants.
Town and country planning Planning authority. A neighbourhood forum challenged the local authority's decision to designate a residents' association as a neighbourhood forum in an area smaller than that sought. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claim, held that the local authority had a wide discretion in determining whether a proposed area was appropriate and it had properly considered the specific circumstances that had existed at the time when the decision had been made.
Judicial review Application for judicial review. The claimant sought permission for judicial review of the Health and Safety Executive's decision to permit an interested party to reopen a fuel terminal. It contended that it should have been consulted as required by Council Directive (EC) 96-82 (on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances). The Administrative Court, in refusing permission, held that the application for judicial review had no prospect of success.
Contract Construction. The claimant building company carried out works on the defendants' houses under instruction by the defendants' insurers, Z, through a third company R. After completion of the works, Z paid R, but R went into administration without paying the claimant. The claimant sought to recover the outstanding moneys from the defendants, relying on a mandate signed by each of the defendants. The Mercantile Court dismissed the test cases brought by the claimant as the payment obligation arising under the mandate had been limited to the payment of the uninsured parts of the cost, namely the policy excess and the cost of the additional works that had not been authorised by the insurer.
East Northamptonshire District Council and others v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another company
Town and country planning Permission for development. An inspector for the first defendant Secretary of State had granted the second defendant company planning permission for four wind turbines. The claimants challenged the inspector's decision on the grounds that he had failed to consider a planning policy on the effect of development on the setting of heritage assets and had given inadequate reasons. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the inspector had erred in balancing relevant policies and had given inadequate reasons for his decision.
European Union Environment. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Poland for the annulment of European Commission Decision (EU) 2011-278 of 27 April 2011, determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to art 10a of Directive (EC) 2003-87 of the European Parliament and of the Council (establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community) and amending Council Directive (EC) 96-61, as last amended by Directive (EC) 2009-29 of the European Parliament and of the Council, so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme of the Community.
Costs Security for costs. The Commercial Court considered an application by the defendant company for security of costs in a matter where the claimant bank had entered liquidation. The court held that the defendant had failed to satisfy the onus as to whether there was some doubt about the ability of the liquidator to use its assets to pay out the costs, and that the case of Barleycorn Enterprises Ltd, Re, Mathias and Davies (a firm) v Down[ still had effect in Ireland, with the result that the defendant's application would be dismissed.
Landlord and tenant Repair. The claimant was the freehold owner and landlord of flats (the property) leased by the defendants. The defendants applied to the LVT for a determination of the service charges payable under their respective leases after a tendering process for major works to be carried out at the property had closed before the defendants had had an opportunity to inspect estimates of the costs. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the Lands Tribunal had been entitled to conclude that the claimant landlord had committed a 'serious breach' and to refuse dispensation with the consultation requirements under s20ZA(1) of the . The claimant appealed. The Supreme Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the lower courts had adopted the wrong approach to the claimant's s20ZA(1) application. The correct question to be asked was, whether the defendants would suffer any relevant prejudice, and, if so, what relevant prejudice, as a result of the claimant's failure, if the s 20(1)(b) dispensation was granted unconditionally. On the facts, the claimant's application for a dispensation under s20(1)(b) of the Act should have been granted. The orders by the lower courts were set aside and the dispensation was granted.