Charging order Judgment debt. A dispute arose between the parties in relation to the refurbishment of domestic property (the property). Subsequently, a costs order was made against the claimant and a charging order was placed on his property. The claimant applied to discharge the order. In dismissing its claim, the Technology and Construction Court held that, on the facts, it would be wholly wrong to discharge the final charging order.
Arbitration Adjudication. The Technology and Construction Court held, in granting the claimant company's application for summary judgment, that the defendant company had no real prospect of successfully defending the enforcement of two adjudication decisions, where papers had been correctly submitted and where there was nothing to prevent a party from giving two notices of adjudication.
Town and country planning Enforcement of planning control. The defendant had been made the subject of an injunction under s187B of the which required her and others to rectify planning breaches. She appealed. The Queen's Bench Division allowed her appeal in part. With regard to her fear of her former husband who also owned the land, the judge had been correct to find that genuine fear was no justification for her inaction. However, the injunction was revoked in respect of her so far as it related to land which she neither owned nor controlled.
Town and country planning Development. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claimant's application pursuant to of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, held that the planning inspector had not misconstrued the 'waste hierarchy' policy in allowing an appeal against a decision to refuse planning permission for a proposed waste treatment facility.
Town and County Planning Permission for development. A planning inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State allowed the second defendant's appeal against the decision of the claimant local authority to refuse planning permission. The Administrative Court allowed the authority's appeal against the inspector's decision on the basis that the inspector had taken an irrelevant consideration into account and had misunderstood or misapplied the authority's planning policy.
Company Voluntary winding up. The claimant sought the court's leave to bring proceedings to compel the ultimate parent company of a company in liquidation to honour a series of binding obligations which it had entered into by way of three separate letters of support. The Chancery Division, in refusing permission, held that the letters of support had not subjected the parent company to any enforceable obligation.
Injunction Variation or discharge. The defendant travellers illegally occupied land in the claimant local authority's area. The defendants' application for planning permission was refused and the parties agreed an injunction which provided that the defendants would leave the land after a 12 month grace period. Shortly before the expiry of that grace period, the defendants applied for either the suspension or variation of the injunction. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the application, but in the light of the, then current, extreme weather conditions, varied the expiry date of the injunction by 21 days.
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.
Sale of goods Breach of contract. The claimant sellers agreed to sell a vessel to the defendant buyer. The buyer failed to pay a deposit within time stipulated by the contract. The sellers treated the contract as being repudiated and sought to recover the deposit as a debt. The arbitration tribunal held that the sellers were not entitled to recover the deposit. In allowing the sellers' appeal, the Commercial Court held that, on its true construction, a memorandum of agreement between the parties had conferred a contractual right on the sellers to accept a repudiation of the contract and provided that the sellers might recover the amount of the deposit in any event.
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.