Judicial review Application for judicial review. The claimant sought permission for judicial review of the Health and Safety Executive's decision to permit an interested party to reopen a fuel terminal. It contended that it should have been consulted as required by Council Directive (EC) 96-82 (on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances). The Administrative Court, in refusing permission, held that the application for judicial review had no prospect of success.
Contract Construction. The claimant building company carried out works on the defendants' houses under instruction by the defendants' insurers, Z, through a third company R. After completion of the works, Z paid R, but R went into administration without paying the claimant. The claimant sought to recover the outstanding moneys from the defendants, relying on a mandate signed by each of the defendants. The Mercantile Court dismissed the test cases brought by the claimant as the payment obligation arising under the mandate had been limited to the payment of the uninsured parts of the cost, namely the policy excess and the cost of the additional works that had not been authorised by the insurer.
East Northamptonshire District Council and others v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another company
Town and country planning Permission for development. An inspector for the first defendant Secretary of State had granted the second defendant company planning permission for four wind turbines. The claimants challenged the inspector's decision on the grounds that he had failed to consider a planning policy on the effect of development on the setting of heritage assets and had given inadequate reasons. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the inspector had erred in balancing relevant policies and had given inadequate reasons for his decision.
European Union Environment. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Poland for the annulment of European Commission Decision (EU) 2011-278 of 27 April 2011, determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to art 10a of Directive (EC) 2003-87 of the European Parliament and of the Council (establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community) and amending Council Directive (EC) 96-61, as last amended by Directive (EC) 2009-29 of the European Parliament and of the Council, so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme of the Community.
Costs Security for costs. The Commercial Court considered an application by the defendant company for security of costs in a matter where the claimant bank had entered liquidation. The court held that the defendant had failed to satisfy the onus as to whether there was some doubt about the ability of the liquidator to use its assets to pay out the costs, and that the case of Barleycorn Enterprises Ltd, Re, Mathias and Davies (a firm) v Down[ still had effect in Ireland, with the result that the defendant's application would be dismissed.
Landlord and tenant Repair. The claimant was the freehold owner and landlord of flats (the property) leased by the defendants. The defendants applied to the LVT for a determination of the service charges payable under their respective leases after a tendering process for major works to be carried out at the property had closed before the defendants had had an opportunity to inspect estimates of the costs. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the Lands Tribunal had been entitled to conclude that the claimant landlord had committed a 'serious breach' and to refuse dispensation with the consultation requirements under s20ZA(1) of the . The claimant appealed. The Supreme Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the lower courts had adopted the wrong approach to the claimant's s20ZA(1) application. The correct question to be asked was, whether the defendants would suffer any relevant prejudice, and, if so, what relevant prejudice, as a result of the claimant's failure, if the s 20(1)(b) dispensation was granted unconditionally. On the facts, the claimant's application for a dispensation under s20(1)(b) of the Act should have been granted. The orders by the lower courts were set aside and the dispensation was granted.
Housing Local authority houses. After her mother's death, the defendant applied to remain in her mother's council house. The local authority sought a notice of possession and alleged that the house was under-occupied. The judge found that the defendant's brother and nephews also lived with her. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the authority's appeal. It found that, on the evidence that had been before the judge, he had been entitled to reach the conclusion that he had.
Housing Local authority houses. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant local authority's appeal against a decision in the county court refusing its claim for possession of a flat which was let to the defendant under a non-secure tenancy. The defendant had been in and out of prison and the flat had been the scene of anti-social behaviour. The court held that the defendant had no defence to the possession claim on either Wednesbury grounds or under art8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Bankruptcy Petition. The Chancery Division considered the claimants' application for a review of an order holding that their centre of main interests, for the purposes of a bankruptcy order, was in Ireland and not England and Wales. In dismissing the application, the court held that evidence put before it had not been sufficient to justify reviewing the order.
Garwood (trustee of the estate in bankruptcy of Adekunbi Ibrahim Fabumni-Stone) v Bank of Scotland Plc
Bankruptcy Trustee in bankruptcy. The Chancery Division considered an appeal against the decision of an adjudicator. It held that the adjudicator had been right to hold that the respondent bank had been entitled to be re-registered as proprietor of a charge that had secured a loan over a property, where the charge had been made as the result of a mistake.