Lilyford Ltd v La Porta

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

*The Joint Administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) v Lehman Brothers Finance SA

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.

Aziz v Caixa d´Estalvis de Catalunya, Tarragona i Manresa (Catalunyacaixa)

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.

*Land Securities plc v Revenue and Customs Commissioners

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.

R (on the application of KVP Ent Ltd) v South Bucks District Council

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.

R (on the application of Buckley and others) v Sheffield City Council

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 .

Relicpride Building Co Ltd v Cordara and another

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.

R (on the application of Daws Hill Neighbourhood Forum and others) v Wycombe District Council

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.

R (Peel Investments (North) Ltd) v Health and Safety Executive

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.