Fortress Value Recovery Fund I LLC and others v Blue Skye Special Opportunities Fund LP and others

Arbitration Stay of court proceedings. The claimant company had been assigned the benefit of a partnership deed. It commenced proceedings against the defendants in respect of mismanagement of the partnership. The defendants sought a stay of the proceedings, seeking to rely on an arbitration clause in the partnership deed pursuant to the . The application was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendants' appeal, holding that they could not rely upon s8(1) of the 1999 Act to compel arbitration of the entirety of the dispute.

ACG Acquisition XX LLC v Olympic Airlines SA (in special liquidation)

Contract Construction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the defendant lessee under an aircraft leasing agreement had been liable for the lease notwithstanding a defect in the aircraft which rendered it un-airworthy, because the defendant had signed a certificate of acceptance. The natural meaning of the documents was that the aircraft had been examined and investigated, that it had been found in the condition required for delivery, and that it had, accordingly, been accepted by the defendant on, or for, lease.

Murray and another v Neil Dowlman Architecture Ltd

Costs Costs management order. The issue in the instant case was whether a costs budget, which had been approved by the court as part of a costs management order, could subsequently be revised or rectified. The claimant sought essentially to revise an approved budget in relation to proceedings in the Technology and Construction Court, or for it to be rectified or clarified that the approved budget excluded the success fee and 'after the event' insurance premiums, which had been mistakenly omitted from the costs budget prepared for a case management conference. The court held that the difficulty in which the claimants found themselves arose out of the costs management pilot scheme and the particular court form (with tick boxes) that had been used as part of that pilot. In those circumstances, it was not appropriate to penalise the claimants. The claimants were allowed to revise-rectify the approved costs management order.

West and another v Ian Finlay & Associates

Building contract Architect. The Technology and Construction Court considered issues of liability and quantum in respect of a claim for negligence against the defendant architects resulting from defective work carried out by a building contractor.

Lazari v London & Newcastle (Camden) Ltd

Practice Payment into court. The Technology and Construction Court dismissed the claimant's application, as part of ongoing proceedings, that payment into court be increased. The court held that it ought to be reluctant to jump into a developing fray between the parties, particularly where it had already ruled once broadly on the same grounds, just because the claimant had since increased her claim and put in some more evidence which supported her claim.

Harrogate Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Town and country planning Planning permission. The appellant local authority granted planning permission for the conversion of a former hostel and caretaker's cottage to form two dwellings. An inspector for the respondent Secretary of State allowed an appeal against that decision and the authority appealed. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the inspector's interpretation of the relevant plan policy had been correct and his reasons had been adequate.

Manolete Partners PLC v Hastings Borough Council

Local authority Decision of local authority. The claimant company claimed for loss of profit and diminution of business caused by the closing of a pier, on which it ran a bingo hall and amusement arcade, by the defendant local authority. The Technology and Construction Court held that the authority was liable to provide compensation to the claimant, and that the claimant was not in default within the meaning of of the Building Act 1984.

R (on the application of Garlick) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Town and country planning Permission for development. The claimant sought retrospective planning permission to authorise the independent residential use of a unit. The local authority and an inspector for the Secretary of State refused the application. The claimant sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the inspector had not made an error of law and that there had been no procedural unfairness.

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'.

Stevens v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another

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.