*R (on the application of Stern) v Horsham District Council

Town and country planning Development. The claimant was the owner and occupier of a barn in relation to which the defendant authority served planning enforcement notices, but not within the requisite period of time required by s172(3)(b) of the . The claimant wished to appeal against the notices and instructed a planning consultant, who served the appeal notices, but out of time. The claimant sought to persuade the authority to withdraw the notices and to re-issue fresh enforcement notices in order to give him an opportunity to appeal, but the authority refused. The claimant brought judicial review proceedings seeking to challenge the validity of the notices. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that, on the ordinary principles of statutory interpretation, interpreting s174(2)(e) of the Act, which enabled an owner to appeal against a notice on the basis that it had not been served as required by s172 of the Act, the words had to be given a narrower meaning, namely where an enforcement notice had not been served at all, rather than where it had not been served in time. Accordingly, s 285 of the Act did not prevent the claimant from challenging the validity of the notices on the ground that the notices had not been served within the time required by s172(3). The claimant had been substantially prejudiced by the authority's breach of duty and the notices would be quashed.

Tael One Partners Ltd (acting in its capacity as general partner of The Asian Entrepreneur Legacy One LP) v Morgan Stanley & Co International plc

Contract Construction. In earlier proceedings the Commercial Court ordered summary judgment, awarding the claimant US$615,597 on the ground that a payment premium was payable by the defendant on repayment of the loan as condition 11.9(a) of the Loan Market Association terms for par trade transactions (the LMA terms) conferred an extra right to sums which had not accrued by the settlement date. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the defendant's appeal held that, on the true construction of the LMA terms, the claimant was not entitled to claim the payment premium as the sums had not accrued at the settlement date and there was no extra entitlement beyond what was said to be payable in the LMA terms. Accordingly, the judge's order was set aside and the claimant's claim was dismissed.

R (on the application of Prideaux) v Buckinghamshire County Council

Town and country planning Permission for development. The claimant contested the grant of planning permission for a waste facility and access road, the construction of which would have detrimental impact upon the environment. The defendant local authority granted planning permission, and Natural England subsequently granted derogation licences allowing detrimental work to take place. At a later date, the licences were quashed by consent, but not before detrimental work had already taken place in respect of two protected species of bats. The claimant brought judicial review proceedings claiming that the grant of planning permission had been unlawful. Permission to proceed with judicial review was allowed but the claim was dismissed. The local authority was not required to perform the function of Natural England. The authority had not acted contrary to Government policy and it had provided adequate reasons for the granting the permission.

Hunt and others v Optima (Cambridge) Ltd and others

Building Construction. The Technology and Construction Court considered a claim by long leaseholders in a block of flats, against, among others, the firm of architects responsible for developing the flats and the company employed to inspect the premises with a view to providing certificates to potential purchasers to confirm the quality of the construction. The court held that the repairing covenant covered, among others, the claimants, and that the architects had owed a duty of care to the claimants. The costs of remedial work would be allowed, as well as damages for each claimant proportionate to their loss.

R (on the application of Baker) v Bath and North East Somerset Council and another

Town and country planning Permission for development. The interested party, H Ltd, operated a waste composting site. The claimant lived near the site. Following the quashing of various planning permissions due to the fact that para13 of Sch 2 to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, did not properly implement European Union law, with the result that applications required to be screened, H Ltd continued to operate the site in the manner that would have been permitted by them. The Secretary of State made positive screening directions and accordingly, there were before the respondent authority three live applications for planning permission which would, if granted, operate with retrospective effect. The purported environmental statement submitted by H Ltd was inadequate and 14 months later, the authority decided that H Ltd ought to have a further three months to present a complete environmental statement and the issue of whether an enforcement notice should be issued was withdrawn from the agenda. The claimant sought to challenge the decision by way of judicial review proceedings. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claim, held that there was no duty on the authority under EU law immediately to issue an enforcement notice in the circumstances and, notwithstanding the court's initial misgivings, on the evidence, the authority had reached a fair, reasonable and proportionate decision on the relevant issue.

Cheshire East Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others

Town and country planning Permission for development. The first defendant Secretary of State overturned the claimant local authority's refusal of outline planning permission for the erection of up to 269 dwellings and associated works. The claimant sought the quashing of the decision on prematurity grounds. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claim, held that the Secretary of State had not failed to take into account a material consideration, misunderstood a relevant policy or given inadequate reasons.

R (on the application of Mombeshora) v Secretary of State for Home Department

Immigration Leave to remain. The claimant, a national of Zimbabwe, applied to the defendant Secretary of State for leave to remain in the UK (the May 2009 application). In completing the relevant form, the claimant did not provide details of his national insurance number, amongst other things. The Secretary of State rejected the application on the basis that it was invalid as various questions had not been completed. The claimant subsequently applied for leave to remain as a spouse of a person settled in the UK, but the Secretary of State rejected the application on the basis that the claimant's leave to remain had expired and that he had not had leave to remain at the time of the second application. The claimant challenged that decision by way of judicial review proceedings. The Administrative Court, in allowing the claim, held that the Secretary of State had erred in treating the May 2009 application as invalid; reading the words of the form, the applicant was required to complete it with details of his national insurance number 'if known' not 'if capable of being ascertained'. The decision of the Secretary of State would be quashed and the matter would be remitted to it for reconsideration.

*Uprichard v Scottish Ministers and another

Town and country planning District plan. The Supreme Court, determining an appeal from the Inner House, Court of Session, held that the appellant's objections to the validity of a structure plan submitted by the planing authority responsible for Fife and, in particular St Andrews, had been adequately considered by the first respondent Scottish Ministers, and the Ministers had given adequate reasons for rejecting the objections.

MT Hojgaard A/S v E.ON Climate & Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd and another

Contract Variation. The Technology and Construction Court considered a number of preliminary issues relating to the correct valuation of variation orders, in circumstances where a contract to design, manufacture, deliver, install and commission the foundations for 60 wind turbine generators and 2 substations for a wind farm in the Solway Firth had been varied to substitute a different vessel to do the installation work.

R (on the application of Catt) v Brighton & Hove City Council

Town and Country Planning Development consent. The defendant local planning authority granted development consent based on an Environmental Impact Assessment screening process that had been conducted in June 2011. The claimant opposed the grant of development consent for nearby land. The claimant contended that the June 2011 screening process had been flawed. The authority admitted to conducting a flawed process and carried out a second screening process that also concluded that the development was not an EIA development. In December 2012, two subsequent planning permissions were granted in respect of the same site. These subsequent permissions had been based on screening processes conducted in August 2012 and November 2012. The claimant issued two applications for judicial review, one concerning the August 2011 permission and the other concerning the two permissions granted in 2012. The essence of both claims was that the screening opinions had been unlawful. Aside from the admitted flaws in the June 2011 screening process, the Administrative Court held that the authority had otherwise conducted impeccable screening processes and the claim for judicial review in respect of the December 2012 permissions would be dismissed. Further, although the August 2011 permission had been granted unlawfully and the second screening opinion could not remedy a flawed process. In the circumstances of the instant case, the court would not exercise its discretion to quash the August 2011 planning permission.