law reports – Page 72 – Current Awareness

Regina v Pacurar – WLR Daily

Posted April 20th, 2016 in appeals, law reports, sexual offences, trespass by sally

‘The defendant was charged with trespass with intent to commit a sexual offence contrary to section 63(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The prosecution case was that the defendant had entered a family’s home as a trespasser, and had been naked and touching his penis in the presence of family members: further, that while being ejected from the house by the father of the family, he had made an unseemly sexual suggestion. In interview with the police the defendant had denied ever having entered the house. On closure of the prosecution case the defendant submitted that there was no case to answer because the prosecution had not particularised the sexual offence which it was asserted that he had intended to commit. The prosecution submitted that it was sufficient that their case was that the intent relied on was to commit one or more of the offences set out in sections 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The trial judge rejected the submission of no case to answer and the defendant was convicted. The defendant appealed against conviction on the ground, among others, that the prosecution had been obliged to specify the sexual offence which it was asserted that the defendant had intended to commit.’

WLR Daily, 13th April 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina (Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice; Regina (Nealon) v Same – WLR Daily

Posted April 20th, 2016 in compensation, judicial review, law reports, miscarriage of justice by sally

Regina (Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice; Regina (Nealon) v Same [2016] EWCA Civ 355

‘Both claimants were convicted of serious criminal offences and had their initial appeals against conviction dismissed. In the first case the Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the claimant’s conviction for murder to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), which quashed it on the basis the safety of the conviction was undermined by the unsatisfactory nature of identification evidence and doubts as to whether the claimant’s alibi had been falsely made. In the second case the commission referred the claimant’s conviction for attempted rape to the Court of Appeal, which quashed it on the basis that the weakness of identification evidence and fresh DNA evidence taken from the victim’s clothing had had a substantial effect on the safety of the conviction. In both cases the Secretary of State refused the claimant compensation, under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, as amended, on the basis that he had failed to show beyond reasonable doubt that the claimant had not committed the offence. The claimants’ claims for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decisions, on the grounds that section 133(1ZA) of the 1988 Act (inserted by section 175 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and providing that there has been a miscarriage of justice in relation to a person convicted of a criminal offence “if and only if the new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that the person did not commit the offence”) was incompatible with article 6.2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in that it infringed the presumption of innocence, were dismissed by the Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division which held that (i) the court was bound by authority of the Supreme Court (and also of the Court of Appeal) to hold that article 6.2 of the Convention was not applicable to compensation decisions made under section 133 of the 1988 Act; and (ii) the statutory scheme under section 133 maintained the presumption of innocence, did not require the applicant for compensation to prove his innocence and that only if the Secretary of State was satisfied that the new fact conclusively showed his innocence was compensation to be paid. The court also refused the claimant in the second case permission to proceed with a claim for judicial review on the basis that the Secretary of State was obliged to carry out a full review of the material before him in a particular case to determine whether the claimant was innocent.’

WLR Daily, 11th April 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Van der Merwe v Goldman and another – WLR Daily

Posted April 20th, 2016 in contracts, law reports, mistake, rescission, setting aside by sally

Van der Merwe v Goldman and another [2016] EWHC 790 (Ch)

‘The claimant and the first defendant were husband and wife and the joint freehold owners of a house, where they lived. On 24 March the claimant and the first defendant executed a transfer of the title to the house to the claimant alone, for no stated consideration. On 27 March the claimant executed a deed of settlement whereby he settled the house on the terms of that deed and appointed himself and the first defendant as trustees of the settlement. The claimant also executed a transfer of the title to the house to himself and the first defendant as the trustees of the settlement. The principal beneficiaries of the settlement were the claimant, the first defendant, their children and remoter issue. Although the transactions were entered into in order to obtain certain tax advantages, in fact, as a consequence of a change in the law, they gave rise to a substantial tax liability. The claimant and first defendant brought a claim for an order setting aside the transfer of 24 March and the settlement and transfer of 27 March. In issue in the proceedings, to which the revenue was joined as a second defendant, was whether the transactions were governed by common law rules for declaring a contract to be void by reason of mistake or the equitable rules for setting aside a gift for mistake.’

WLR Daily, 11th April 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Loose v Lynn Shell Fish Ltd and others (Le Strange Meakin, Part 20 defendant) (Crown Estate Comrs intervening) – WLR Daily

Posted April 20th, 2016 in Crown, fisheries, law reports, prescription by sally

Loose v Lynn Shell Fish Ltd and others (Le Strange Meakin, Part 20 defendant) (Crown Estate Comrs intervening) [2016] UKSC 14

‘An estate adjoining the foreshore on the east side of the Wash owned a private fishery with an exclusive right to take shellfish over part of the foreshore. In 1970 the estate granted a lease of that exclusive right to the claimant. The claimant brought proceedings against the defendants alleging that they had been fishing for cockles in areas of foreshore which were part of the private fishery of which he was the lessee. The defendants accepted that a private fishery had been established by prescription but disputed its extent. In particular, they contended that it did not extend to large sandbanks which had been detached from the foreshore until the channels separating them had silted up; that such sandbanks were not subject to the doctrine of accretion, properly understood; and that, even if they were, it would not follow that the fishery rights had increased commensurately since that would have required a Crown grant and the power of the Crown to make such a grant had been removed by Magna Carta. The judge, however, held that the terms of the grant presumed as a result of the past prescriptive activities was a grant before 1189 of a fishery extending over the whole of the foreshore as it varied from time to time, and accordingly included the sandbanks; that on that basis, the defendants were liable in damages; and that the most practical of the various alternative lines put forward as the defined seaward boundary of the fishery was the mean low water mark of spring tides, rather than extreme low water as contended for by the claimant. The defendants appealed and the claimant cross-appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants’ appeal and held that as conditions changed and more or less of the seabed was exposed at low water, the area of the private fishery would expand or shrink, and held, allowing the claimant’s cross-appeal in part, that the fishery extended in law as far as lowest astronomical tide, which was the lowest point to which the tide fell as a result of normal astronomical forces.’

WLR Daily, 13th April 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted April 15th, 2016 in law reports by sally

High Court (Family Division)

I, Re (Human Fertilisation And Embryology Act 2008) [2016] EWHC 791 (Fam) (12 April 2016)

E-R (Child Arrangements) [2016] EWHC 805 (Fam) (08 April 2016)

Z, Re (Recognition of Foreign Order) (rev 1) [2016] EWHC 784 (Fam) (08 April 2016)

High Court (Patents Court)

American Science & Engineering Inc v Rapiscan Systems Ltd [2016] EWHC 756 (Pat) (11 April 2016)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Bolt Burdon Solicitors v Tariq & Ors [2016] EWHC 811 (QB) (13 April 2016)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

Stellite Construction Ltd v Vascroft Contractors Ltd [2016] EWHC 792 (TCC) (14 April 2016)

Source: www.bailii.org

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted April 15th, 2016 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Gainford Care Homes Ltd v Tipple & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 382 (15 April 2016)

Webb v Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust [2016] EWCA Civ 365 (14 April 2016)AIG

AIG Europe Ltd v Oc320301 LLP & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 367 (14 April 2016)

Khawaja v Popat & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 362 (14 April 2016)

C (Children) [2016] EWCA Civ 374 (14 April 2016)

Yousif v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2016] EWCA Civ 364 (14 April 2016)

Department for Transport v Sparks & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 360 (14 April 2016)

Goldtrail Travel Ltd v Aydin & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 371 (13 April 2016)

BL (Jamaica) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 357 (13 April 2016)

Mutch v Mutch [2016] EWCA Civ 370 (13 April 2016)

Transocean Drilling UK Ltd v Providence Resources Plc [2016] EWCA Civ 372 (13 April 2016)

LSREF III Wight Ltd v Gateley LLP [2016] EWCA Civ 359 (13 April 2016)

Gomes, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 373 (13 April 2016)

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Heddell, R v [2016] EWCA Crim 443 (14 April 2016)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Auzins v Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Latvia [2016] EWHC 802 (Admin) (14 April 2016)

Onykwere v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 758 (Admin) (13 April 2016)

Sino, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 803 (Admin) (12 April 2016)

Harris & Anor, R (on the application of) v Broads Authority [2016] EWHC 799 (Admin) (12 April 2016)

B, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 786 (Admin) (12 April 2016)

Source: www.bailii/org/uk

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted April 13th, 2016 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Hallam & Anor, R (on the applications of) v The Secretary of State for Justice (rev 1) [2016] EWCA Civ 355 (11 April 2016)

High Court (Administrative Court)

B, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 786 (Admin) (12 April 2016)

Sino, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 803 (Admin) (12 April 2016)

Harris & Anor, R (on the application of) v Broads Authority [2016] EWHC 799 (Admin) (12 April 2016)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Sharp & Ors v Blank & Ors [2016] EWHC 776 (Ch) (12 April 2016)

Der Merwe v Goldman & Ors [2016] EWHC 790 (Ch) (11 April 2016)

High Court (Family Division)

I, Re (Human Fertilisation And Embryology Act 2008) [2016] EWHC 791 (Fam) (12 April 2016)

E-R (Child Arrangements) [2016] EWHC 805 (Fam) (08 April 2016)

High Court (Patents Court)

American Science & Engineering Inc v Rapiscan Systems Ltd [2016] EWHC 756 (Pat) (11 April 2016)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Axon v Ministry of Defence [2016] EWHC 787 (QB) (11 April 2016)

Gurieva & Anor v Community Safety Development (UK) Ltd [2016] EWHC 643 (QB) (06 April 2016)

Sparrow v Andre [2016] EWHC 739 (QB) (06 April 2016)

Source: www.bailii.org

England and Wales Cricket Board Ltd and another v Tixdaq Ltd and another – WLR Daily

Posted April 13th, 2016 in copyright, damages, EC law, intellectual property, internet, law reports, sport by sally

England and Wales Cricket Board Ltd and another v Tixdaq Ltd and another [2016] EWHC 575 (Ch)

‘The claimants owned the copyrights in television broadcasts, and in films incorporated within such broadcasts, of most cricket matches played by the English cricket teams in England and Wales. The defendants operated a website and various mobile applications (“Apps”) which used screen capture technology to copy clips of broadcast footage of sporting events and uploaded those clips to the Apps. The defendants’ uploaded a considerable number of clips of broadcasts of cricket matches, lasting up to eight seconds, to the Apps where they could be viewed by users. Users could also upload clips, together with commentary, on to the website and the defendants’ social media accounts. The claimants brought a claim for damages, alleging uploading the clips prima facie constituted breaches of sections 16, 17 and/or 20 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. The 1988 Act did not require either broadcasts or films to be original in order for copyright to subsist in them. An issue arose as to the applicable test for substantiality in circumstances where there was no intellectual creation. The question went to both infringement, which required an act such as reproduction or communication to the public of the whole, or any “substantial part” of a work, and also to the applicability of the fair dealing defence in section 30(2) of the 1988 Act, on which the defendants relied.’

WLR Daily, 18th April 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Shergill and others v Khaira and others (No 2) – WLR Daily

Posted April 13th, 2016 in appeals, civil procedure rules, costs, law reports, striking out, Supreme Court by sally

Shergill and others v Khaira and others (No 2) [2016] EWHC 628 (Ch)

‘The judge dismissed the defendants’ application to strike out the claimants’ claim, a decision which was later reversed by the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court allowed the claimants’ appeal from that decision and ordered that the defendants pay the claimants’ costs in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. The costs judge subsequently refused the defendants’ application to stay the immediate detailed assessment of those costs. The defendants appealed from that decision on the ground that, by CPR r 47.1, the costs of proceedings could not be subject to detailed assessment until the proceedings were concluded, unless the appellate court had expressly ordered the costs to be assessed immediately, which it had not.’

WLR Daily, 23rd March 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Howe v Motor Insurers’ Bureau – WLR Daily

Posted April 13th, 2016 in compensation, EC law, insurance, law reports, road traffic offences, time limits by sally

Howe v Motor Insurers’ Bureau [2016] EWHC 640 (QB)

‘Regulation 13(1) of the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) (Information Centre and Compensation Body) Regulations 2003 provides: “(1) This regulation applies where— (a) an accident, caused by or arising out of the use of a vehicle which is normally based in an EEA state, occurs on the territory of— (i) an EEA state other than the United Kingdom, or (ii) a subscribing state, and an injured party resides in the United Kingdom, (b) that injured party has made a request for information under regulation 9(2), and (c) it has proved impossible— (i) to identify the vehicle the use of which is alleged to have been responsible for the accident, or (ii) within a period of two months after the date of the request, to identify an insurance undertaking which insures the use of the vehicle.”’

WLR Daily, 22nd March 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

In re G (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008) – WLR Daily

Posted April 13th, 2016 in assisted reproduction, civil partnerships, family courts, law reports, rectification by sally

In re G (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008) [2016] EWHC 729 (Fam)

‘The applicant, X, who was at all material times in a same-sex relationship with Y, was the biological mother of twins, born as a result of IVF treatment provided by a licensed fertility clinic to Y, the gestational mother and the twins’ legal parent. Y was at all material times in a civil partnership with, though separated from, another woman who was not a party to the proceedings. Y, as the gestational mother, should have signed Form WP, and X, as her partner, should have signed Form PP. In fact, and as a result of what was accepted to have been errors by the clinic, Y completed and signed a Form PP and X completed and signed a Form WP. A similar mistake was made in relation to the Form IC signed by both Y and X. X, supported by Y, sought a declaration pursuant to section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986 that she was, in accordance with section 43 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, the legal parent of the twins and in the circumstances it was common ground that X was entitled to the relief she sought. The issues were: (1) whether that was a conclusion that the court could come to simply by a process of construction or whether the proper form of order was a decree of rectification and (2) arising out of the fact that Y was at all material times in a civil partnership with another woman, the potential impact of section 42(1) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 which provided: “If at the time of the placing in her of the embryo or the sperm and eggs or of her artificial insemination, W was a party to a civil partnership or a marriage with another woman, then subject to section 45(2) to (4), the other party to the civil partnership or marriage is to be treated as a parent of the child unless it is shown that she did not consent to the placing in W of the embryo or the sperm and eggs or to her artificial insemination … ”’

WLR Daily, 6th April 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Health Executive of Ireland v Z and others – WLR Daily

Posted April 13th, 2016 in children, EC law, enforcement, family courts, health, hospitals, law reports, medical treatment by sally

Health Executive of Ireland v Z and others [2016] EWHC 784 (Fam)

‘The applicant sought and obtained an order in the Irish High Court authorising the treatment in a specialist unit in an English hospital of an Irish child aged 15 who had developed a very serious eating disorder and who required treatment which could not be provided in her home country. Her doctors, supported by her parents but against her wishes, made arrangements for her to be admitted and treated in a specialist unit in an English hospital which was able to provide the treatment required. The applicant applied to the English High Court for an order, under the inherent jurisdiction of the court, for recognition and enforcement of the Irish High Court order. At an initial hearing the court made an interim emergency order under inherent jurisdiction permitting the child’s emergency admission for treatment in the hospital in England. At a further hearing on notice a number of issues arose for determination, including whether article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (“the Regulation”) applied to the case, whether the court had power under its inherent jurisdiction to make an interim emergency order for the recognition and enforcement of the Irish High Court order pending an application under FPR Pt 31, whether recognition should be refused on any of the grounds set out in article 23 of the Regulation, and whether the child should be represented in the proceedings.’

WLR Daily, 8th April 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted April 11th, 2016 in law reports by sally

High Court (Administrative Court)

Macleod, R (on the application of) v The Governors of the Peabody Trust [2016] EWHC 737 (Admin) (08 April 2016)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Hayfin Opal Luxco 3 SARL & Anor v Windermere VII Cmbs Plc & Ors [2016] EWHC 782 (Ch) (08 April 2016)

High Court (Family Division)

Z, Re (Recognition of Foreign Order) (rev 1) [2016] EWHC 784 (Fam) (08 April 2016)

Source: www.bailii.org.uk

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted April 8th, 2016 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

C (Children), Re [2016] EWCA Civ 356 (07 April 2016)

Gurung v The Entry Clearance Officer, New Delhi [2016] EWCA Civ 358 (07 April 2016)

High Court (Administrative Court)

National Crime Agency v Simkus [2016] EWHC 728 (Admin) (08 April 2016)

Al-Saadoon & Ors v Secretary of State for Defence [2016] EWHC 773 (Admin) (07 April 2016)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Ian Gray & Associates Ltd v Investments Ltd [2016] EWHC 724 (Ch) (06 April 2016)

High Court (Family Division)

G, Re (Human Fertilisation And Embryology Act 2008) [2016] EWHC 729 (Fam) (06 April 2016)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Harrath v Stand for Peace Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 665 (QB) (06 April 2016)

Sparrow v Andre [2016] EWHC 739 (QB) (06 April 2016)

Gurieva & Anor v Community Safety Development (UK) Ltd [2016] EWHC 643 (QB) (06 April 2016)

Commodities Research Unit International (Holdings) Ltd & Or v King & Wood Mallesons LLP [2016] EWHC 727 (QB) (05 April 2016)

High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

Newlyn Plc v London Borough of Waltham Forest (Rev 1) [2016] EWHC 771 (TCC) (06 April 2016)

Source: www.bailii.org.uk

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted April 6th, 2016 in law reports by sally

England and Wales High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

Bell & Anor v Northumbrian Water Ltd [2016] EWHC 133 (TCC) (5 April 2016)

Source: www.bailii.org

Bromley London Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another – WLR Daily

Posted March 30th, 2016 in appeals, change of use, environmental protection, interpretation, law reports, local government, planning by sally

Bromley London Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another [2016] EWHC 595 (Admin)

‘A developer sought planning permission for a development on Green Belt land comprising nine residential houses and a barn and associated dwellings for a livery business. The proposal involved redevelopment of previously developed land at a livery, the business of which was partly retained. The local planning authority refused planning permission. On the developer’s appeal, an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State considered that the proposal comprising new buildings was appropriate development and concluded that, applying the requirements of the sixth exception in para 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”), the new buildings would not impact adversely either on the openness of the Green Belt or the purposes for designation of the Green Belt. He accordingly allowed the developer’s appeal. The local planning authority applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash the inspector’s decision, contending, inter alia, that para 89, which listed six exceptions to the general policy that new buildings were inappropriate development in the Green Belt, should be interpreted to mean that development which was not only operational development for new buildings but also involved a material change in use for those buildings did not fall within the categories of appropriate development, and that therefore the inspector had erred in law in treating the proposal as appropriate development, since the construction of the new houses also involved a material change of use to residential or mixed residential and equestrian use.’

WLR Daily, 15th February 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Hargreaves v Revenue and Customs Commissioners – WLR Daily

Posted March 30th, 2016 in appeals, HM Revenue & Customs, income tax, law reports, taxation by sally

Hargreaves v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2016] EWCA Civ 174

‘The taxpayer stated on his self-assessment tax return that he was to be regarded as provisionally non-resident and not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom with effect from a certain date. The revenue issued a discovery assessment against him under section 29 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 on the basis that he was not entitled to be treated as neither resident nor ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom for tax purposes as he had not taken sufficient steps to become non-resident. The taxpayer appealed, first, against the contention that he was not in fact resident or ordinarily resident here, and, second, against the discovery assessment, alleging that it had been made without the revenue having any power to do so and therefore was invalid. He applied for a direction that the second issue be heard as a preliminary issue on the basis that he wanted to be able to elect not to give evidence until the revenue had proved its case on the relevant conditions in section 29(3). The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the application, determining that he had no right to require the revenue to establish at a separate preliminary hearing against the discovery assessment the matters which under section 29 the revenue should establish to show that the discovery assessment was validly made and that while it had a discretion to order a separate preliminary trial, it would not do so. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal, concluding that the taxpayer did not have any relevant right to a preliminary hearing and that it was possible to have a single hearing even though there were different burdens of proof on the two issues in the present case and that it would need to hear evidence on the issues together.’

WLR Daily, 22nd March 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

General Medical Council v Adeogba; General Medical Council v Visvardis – WLR Daily

Posted March 30th, 2016 in appeals, disciplinary procedures, doctors, law reports by sally

General Medical Council v Adeogba; General Medical Council v Visvardis [2016] EWCA Civ 162

‘In each of two cases, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the General Medical Council (“the GMC”) against the respondent doctor. In neither case did the doctor concerned attend the disciplinary hearing. In the first case the doctor did not answer correspondence and did not attend the hearing because, knowing of the investigation and his time limited suspension, he left the United Kingdom and then failed to access the only means the GMC had to communicate with him. In the second case the doctor challenged the disciplinary process and refused to participate until his concerns had been addressed. Having considered the available evidence as to the reasons for non-attendance, in each case the separately constituted fitness to practise panel (“the panel”) determined to continue in the doctor’s absence under rule 31 of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004 and, having examined and to some extent tested the evidence supporting the complaint, found the case proved in whole or in part. Both doctors were erased from the medical register. On appeal by the doctor in the first case, the judge, having admitted fresh evidence as to the reason for non-attendance, determined that the doctor could not have been aware of the hearing date and that the panel had been wrong to proceed in his absence. On appeal by the doctor in the second case, the judge found that there was no basis for the panel to conclude that the doctor would not attend in future if the matter were adjourned and had been wrong to proceed in his absence. In both cases, fresh hearings were ordered.’

WLR Daily, 16th March 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

One Step (Support) Ltd v Morris-Garner and another – WLR Daily

Posted March 30th, 2016 in appeals, compensation, damages, law reports, restrictive covenants by sally

One Step (Support) Ltd v Morris-Garner and another [2016] EWCA Civ 180

‘The defendants were a former director and manager of the claimant company who were found to have breached restrictive covenants not to compete, solicit clients or use confidential information belonging to the company. Losses were difficult to quantify. The judge gave the claimants the option of recovering damages on the Wrotham Park basis, being the amount which would notionally have been agreed between the parties, acting reasonably, as the price for releasing the defendants from the restrictions.’

WLR Daily, 22nd March 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Wychavon District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government – WLR Daily

Posted March 30th, 2016 in housing, law reports, local government, planning by sally

Wychavon District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] EWHC 592 (Admin)

‘The developer applied for outline planning permission for the development of 32 dwellings on a site lying outside the defined development boundaries and allocated sites set out in the local planning authority’s local plan. The local authority failed to determine the application and the developer appealed to the Secretary of State. The inspector appointed by the Secretary of State recognised that the main issue was whether the site was a suitable location for residential development having regard to the local plan and other considerations. He identified that the proposed development was in clear conflict with the location policy in the local plan, which policy remained in force and so retained its full weight as part of the statutory development plan. Having found therefore that para 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (“the NPPF”) did not apply, the inspector went on to consider the policies of the NPPF as a whole, concluding that the proposed development constituted sustainable development so that the presumption in favour of sustainable development applied, that being a material consideration capable of outweighing the development plan, pursuant to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Accordingly, the inspector allowed the appeal and granted permission. The local authority challenged that decision pursuant to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on the ground, inter alia, that the inspector had erred in law in failing properly to apply the approach to decision-taking set out in section 38(6)of the 2004 Act.’

WLR Daily, 16th March 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk