Landlord and tenant Lease. A tenant of a shop applied to the court under s24 of the for a new tenancy. The landlord opposed the application. The county court judge held, amongst other things, that the landlord would grant the tenant a new tenancy of the shop and that the tenant was at liberty to enforce the terms of an agreement by way of an application for an order for specific performance. In granting the landlord's appeal, the Chancery Division held that, on the fact, the judge had erred in coming to that decision. The relevant paragraph of the judge's order was set aside and the matter was remitted. The court agreed that a new tenancy under s29 of the Act could not be granted retrospectively but held that that did not mean that the agreed commencement date of the new tenancy had no legal effect.
Nuisance Sewer. The claimant property developer commenced proceedings against the defendant sewerage undertaker in nuisance, trespass to land and negligence arising from the defendant's refusal, in breach of its statutory duty under s106 of the to permit the claimant to connect to the public sewer. The Queen's Bench Division held, inter alia, that the claimant was entitled to pursue its claims in nuisance and trespass to land. The defendant appealed and the claimant cross-appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal as, inter alia, the claims for damages in nuisance and trespass could not succeed.
Commons Registration. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal against a decision by the Administrative Court in which the judge held that registration of a beach as a town or village green pursuant to s15 of the was incompatible with the statutory powers and duties of Newhaven Port and Properties Ltd (NPP) as owner of the beach. The court held that whilst the court did not underestimate the consequences that registration of West Beach as a town or village green might have on the future discharge of NPP's statutory functions, those consequences did not provide a proper ground for holding that the land was not registrable.
Land registration Rectification of register. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appellant's appeal against a decision of the High Court upholding a decision of a deputy adjudicator of the Land Registry refusing rectification of the register in respect of a disputed piece of land. In circumstances where the disputed land had been mistakenly included in the respondent's title (No 31), the court held that the previous owners of the appellant's land had not been dispossessed of the disputed land by the owners of No 31, and their possession of the disputed land during the relevant period was not 'adverse possession' within the meaning of the .
Sentence Confiscation order. The claimant had been convicted of conspiracy to supply cannabis and had been made subject to a confiscation order in the sum of approximately 627,553 on the basis that he had sufficient assets to meet the order, namely a house valued at approximately 900,000. The claimant having missed the deadline for payment of the order, the magistrates' court refused an application for an adjournment and made a warrant of commitment. In dismissing the claimant's claim for judicial review of the decision to refuse the adjournment and to issue a warrant of commitment, the Administrative Court held that the claimant had not demonstrated that the justices had erred in their approach and that the claimant's submissions did not seem to have any substance.
Landlord and tenant Lease. The defendants had acquired a share in the claimant company, which had been established to obtain the reversion in a flat complex. The company issued proceedings to recover the arrears of ground rent from them. The defendants contended that a letter prior to the acquisition of the reversion had represented that the ground rent would be extinguished. The judge held that the representation had not been relied on. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the defendants' appeal, held that the letter had not promised anything and it was unreasonable for the defendants to have relied on it.
Housing Homeless person. The claimant had used a counterfeit passport to obtain social housing from the defendant local authority. When her deception was discovered, the authority served her with a notice to quit which was upheld on review. The claimant's subsequent lawful application for accommodation was refused on the basis that she had become intentionally homeless. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed her appeal on the ground that the authority's review officer had made two errors of law in his determination. The matter was referred back to the authority for a fresh decision.
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.
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.
Town and country planning Appeal to Minister against refusal of permission for development. The claimant local planning authority refused planning permission for a development on farmland owned by the second and third defendants. The second and third defendants appealed to the Secretary of State, who granted planning permission. The local authority issued a claim under s288 of the . The claimant authority contended that the Secretary of State's inspector had not given sufficient weight to their local interim planning policy and that he had misapplied national guidance. The second and third defendants made an application to have the claim struck out. The Administrative Court found the authority's grounds unarguable: (i) weight was a matter for the inspector and his decision was not irrational and had been fully reasoned, and (ii) whilst construction of the national policy was a matter of law, it was not to be construed as a statute. The claim would be struck out.