‘A law firm LLP which acted for itself in legal proceedings is not a litigant in person for the purposes of the CPR, the Court of Appeal has held.’
Litigation Futures, 26th June 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Regina (Williams) v Powys County Council [2017] EWCA Civ 427
‘The defendant local planning authority granted planning permission for the erection of a wind turbine on the farm of the interested party. The wind turbine was erected on the side of a hill the other side of which, about 1·5 km from the wind turbine, was a Grade II* listed building. Several scheduled monuments were also in the surrounding area, two of which were within two km of the site. The claimant, a local resident, applied for judicial review of the council’s decision to grant planning permission. The judge dismissed the claim, determining that (i) the planning authority was not required to consult the Welsh ministers under article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Wales) Order 2012 as the requirement to consult on development “likely to affect the site of a scheduled monument” in paragraph k of Schedule 4 to the Order applied only to development likely to have some direct physical effect on the monument, not also to development likely to have visual effects on the setting of the monument, and (ii) the planning authority had not erred in failing to perform the duty in section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which required it to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of a listed building when deciding whether to grant planning permission for development which affected a listed building or its setting.’
WLR Daily, 9th June 2017
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Khan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 424
‘The claimant, a national of Pakistan, had limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom. A few days before the expiry of his leave he applied for an extension of his period of leave. The Secretary of State rejected that application on the grounds that it had not been accompanied by the required fee. Since the claimant had no right of appeal against this rejection, he submitted a renewed application accompanied by the required fee. The Secretary of State refused that application on the merits, informing the claimant that he had no right of appeal against her refusal since his renewed application had been made at a time when he had no leave to remain. The claimant sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s determination that he had no right of appeal, contending that he had had leave to remain at the time of making his renewed application since his leave had been automatically extended pursuant to section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 when he made his original application for an extension, and was still continuing. The claimant was granted permission to proceed with his claim, but at the full hearing the Upper Tribunal dismissed the claim on the basis that the claimant had an alternative remedy in the form of an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.’
WLR Daily, 8th June 2017
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has refused to consider a circuit judge ruling which held that failure by a solicitor to correctly value a personal injury claim and pay the right court fee did not amount to an abuse of process.’
Litigation Futures, 20th June 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A Court of Appeal decision upholding the parties’ choice to use English law under a swap agreement will provide some relief to financial firms despite the ongoing uncertainty around the UK’s decision to leave the EU, an expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 21st June 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Basildon Council has confirmed it is to appeal the imposition by the Information Commissioner of a £150,000 monetary penalty for publishing sensitive personal information about a family in planning application documents that were made publicly available online.’
Local Government Lawyer, 20th June 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘In applying for judgment to be set aside on the basis of fraud, a party must establish that the evidence of fraud was not available at the time of the trial and could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence.’
Zenith PI Blog, 19th June 2017
Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘The London Borough of Islington has secured a £3,000-plus costs order in its favour after a judge found that landlords had “behaved unreasonably in bringing an appeal which they never intended to pursue properly and never did pursue properly”.’
Local Government Lawyer, 19th June 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Was it unlawful for the Secretary of State for Health, who had power to make provisions for the functioning of the National Health Service in England, to have failed to make a provision which would have enabled women who were citizens of the UK, but who were usually resident in Northern Ireland, to undergo a termination of pregnancy under the NHS in England free of charge?’
UK Human Rights Blog, 15 June 2017
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Bakery group Greggs and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy have withdrawn their appeals over a High Court ruling that incorrect advice had been given under the ‘Primary Authority’ scheme.’
Local Government Lawyer, 16th June 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
F v L (Child Arrangements Order: Relocation)[2017] EWHC 1377 (Fam)
‘The mother, an Italian national, sought a child arrangements order (“CAO”) under section 8 of the Children Act 1989, as amended, in respect of the child, aged five, and permission to relocate with him to Italy, alleging serious domestic abuse by the father. The Italian father opposed the application for relocation and cross-applied for a shared care CAO. Despite the recommendation in the report prepared by the CAFCASS officer that the child’s main carer be his mother and that she should be given permission to relocate to Italy, the trial judge decided not to consider or make any finding in respect of the abuse allegations, refused the mother’s application to relocate and ordered the continuance of the shared care regime. The mother appealed on the grounds, inter alia, that the trial judge had made a fundamental procedural error in failing to resolve the issue of the future care of the child prior to considering the application for relocation and had failed to make findings on the abuse allegations.’
WLR Daily, 9th June 2017
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re Gard (A Child) (Child on Life Support: Withdrawal of Treatment)[2017] EWCA Civ 410
‘C, a child aged nine months, suffered from a rare inherited mitochondrial disease which led to dysfunction of several of his organ systems. His condition had progressed since his birth resulting in irreversible brain damage and an inability to move his arms or legs or to breathe unaided. His life expectancy was measured in months. His parents sought to obtain an alternative treatment, known as nucleoside therapy, that was available in the United States of America. The NHS trust which ran the hospital where C was treated applied pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court for declarations that it was lawful and in C’s best interests for his artificial ventilation to be withdrawn, for his treating clinicians to provide him with palliative care only, and for him not to undergo nucleoside therapy. The judge granted the application and made the declarations sought, finding that the body of experienced medical opinion available to him, save for the doctor offering the nucleoside therapy, was unanimous to the effect that the prospect of nucleoside therapy having any benefit was effectively zero and would be futile. C’s parents sought permission to appeal on the grounds that (i) where parents put forward a viable treatment option for their child, that option could only be overriden by the court if it was established that the pursuit of that option was likely to cause the child to suffer “significant harm”, and the usual “best interests” test did not apply; and (ii) the judge had no jurisdiction to grant an order on the application of one clinical team preventing a second clinical team from carrying out a treatment that the latter had offered in the reasonable exercise of its professional judgment.’
WLR Daily, 24th May 2017
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘An applicant has secured permission from the Court of Appeal to argue that his challenge in a planning case was not brought out of time.’
Local Government Lawyer, 13th June 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The supreme court has ruled that women from Northern Ireland are not entitled to free access to abortions on the NHS, a decision that was condemned by campaigners as a “further blow to women” from the region.’
The Guardian, 14th June 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A City trader has successfully challenged a divorce judgment awarding her ex-husband of four years £2.7m – in a decision that family lawyers warn raises more questions than it answers.’
Law Society's Gazette, 13th June 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The Home Office’s “deport first, appeal later” policy for removing foreign criminals has been ruled unlawful by the supreme court.’
The Guardian, 14th June 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A city council has been hit with a £100,000 monetary penalty after leaving employees’ personal information vulnerable to a cyber attacker who exploited a flaw in the authority’s website.’
Local Government Lawyer, 12th June 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The European court of human rights is due to decide on Tuesday whether it will hear legal arguments from the family of a severely ill baby who want him to be sent to the US for treatment.’
The Guardian, 13th June 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The Upper Tribunal reversed decisions from the First Tier Tribunal in respect of the validity of estimated service demands, the requirements to prove the service of a notice under section 20B in light of the incorporation of section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 in the lease, and whether a tenant had waived the Landlord’s non-compliance with service charge mechanism of the lease by conduct.’
Tanfield Chambers, 1st June 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘A local authority was required to give credit to leaseholders for funds received from third-parties when recovering a contribution to the cost of major works.’
Tanfield Chambers, 1st June 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2017