R (on the application of Burridge) v Breckland District Council

Town and Country Planning Planning permission. The defendant local authority granted the interested party two planning permissions for a biomass renewable energy plant and a combined heat and power plant. The claimant applied for judicial review on the basis that a further screening opinion under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, should have been carried out. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division dismissed the claimant's appeal against the judge's decision to dismiss her application. There was no reason to interfere with the judge's findings, which had been properly open to him in the circumstances of the instant case.

Twinmar Holdings Ltd v Klarius UK Ltd

Landlord and tenant Repair. The claimant landlord brought a dilapidations claim against the tenant in which it alleged breach of a repair covenant of a lease in respect of its property and sought to recover the cost of repairs to the property. The Technology and Construction Court held that, on the facts, the claimant was entitled to recover most of the sums in issue.

Lane v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

Human rights Right to respect for private and family life. The appellant opposed an order for the felling of a tree on the basis that it would interfere with his rights to respect for his home and private life under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In particular, he relied on his particular fixation with the tree due to his severe and chronic obsessive compulsive disorder. A judge held that the claimant had no proprietary interest in the relevant property. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the judge had not been provided with relevant case law, enabling him to follow the proper process and remitted the matter to the county court.

Fileturn Ltd v The Belgrave London Ltd

Building contract Arbitration. The Technology and Construction Court, in proceedings brought pursuant to a building contract, made a declaration that the adjudicator had made a 'temporary binding' decision as to the date of practical completion and refused to stay enforcement of the judgment sum pending the decisions in two subsequent adjudications. Consequently, summary judgment was entered for the claimant.

Morris Homes (West Midlands) Ltd v Keay and another

Arbitration Award. The proceedings concerned a dispute in respect of the construction of a medical centre. Following an arbitration in which the arbitrator found for the defendants, the claimant company applied for leave to appeal the decision of the arbitrator on two issues. In dismissing the application, the Technology and Construction Court held that the claimant's first question in the appeal did not raise an issue of general public importance, and that the arbitrator's decision in respect of the second issue had not obviously been wrong.

L v M

European Union Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art3(4) and (5) of Council Directive (EC) 2001-42 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 (on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment). The request had been made in the course of proceedings between L and M, a municipality, concerning the legal validity of a building plan prepared by M without an environmental assessment, as required by that directive, having been carried out.

R (on the application of Creed-Miles) v Southwark London Borough Council

Town and Country Planning Planning permission. The defendant local authority granted the interested party planning permission for a development. The claimant applied for judicial review of the grant of planning permission on the basis that the proposed development would have been within an exclusion zone set out by an earlier enforcement decision. The Administrative Court dismissed the application as the development was at no point within the exclusion zone.

Northrop v Reeves (Listing Officer)

Local Government Council tax. The claimant contested a council tax rating for his boat that had been moored at a non-permanent mooring in essentially the same place for two years. The Valuation Tribunal allowed the claimant's appeal and the listings officer appealed to the High Court. The High Court allowed that appeal. The claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal, Civil Division on grounds that the High Court had erred in law. The court found that for a mooring to attract liability for council tax, there was a long-standing requirement for a degree of permanence. Permanence was not measured by a period of time alone, but in the circumstances of the present case, time was an overwhelming factor that the tribunal had failed to address. The judge had been correct to overturn the tribunal's decision.

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.

*HSBC Bank v Tambrook Jersey Ltd

Conflict of laws Jurisdiction. The Chancery Division considered an application by the debtor company and the creditor bank for administration of a Jersey company to be held in England. The court held that, as the relevant legislation only permitted the English court to 'assist' ongoing or intended foreign administration proceedings, it was unable to allow the application.