Results: 128

• R (Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

  08 Sep 2017 [2017] EWHC 2259 (Admin) {0} {1}; [2017] PTSR 1662; [2017] WLR(D) 614, QBD (Holgate J)

  21 Sep 2018 [2018] EWCA Civ 2069; [2019] PTSR 292; [2018] WLR(D) 663, CA (Lewison, Lindblom, FlauxLJJ)

  Subsequent citations: 5.
  PLANNING — Planning permission — Conditions

  PLANNING — Practice — Case management
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  PLANNING — Planning permission — Conditions — Grant of planning permission for residential development — Condition restricting completion of balance of development until order for stopping up of footpath confirmed or not confirmed — Inspector declining to confirm order as condition not meeting statutory test of necessity — Whether statutory test properly applied — Whether planning condition properly construed — Whether stopping up order “necessary” to implementation of planning permission — Whether decision to be quashed — Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c 8) (as amended by Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (Commencement No 9 and Consequential Provisions) Order 2006 (SI 2006/1281), art 5(c), Restricted Byways (Application and Consequential Amendment of Provisions) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/1177), reg 2, Sch 1(1), para 1, Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 (c 27), s 12(2)(4)(5) and Planning (Wales) Act 2015 (anaw 4), s 38(2)(3)(a)), ss 257, 259

  PLANNING — Practice — Case management — Observations on identifying and determining preliminary issues — Observations on efficient use of court resources including avoidance of excessively long skeleton arguments or court bundles

  PLANNING — Planning permission — Conditions — Grant of planning permission for residential development — Condition restricting completion of balance of development until order for stopping up of footpath confirmed or not confirmed — Inspector declining to confirm order as condition not meeting statutory test of necessity — Whether statutory test properly applied — Whether planning condition properly construed — Whether stopping up order “necessary” to implementation of planning permission — Whether decision to be quashed — Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c 8) (as amended by Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 (c 27), s 12(2)(4)(5) and Planning (Wales) Act 2015 (anaw 4), s 38(2)(3)(a)), ss 257, 259

  6 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered

• HJ Banks & Co Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

  23 Nov 2018 [2018] EWHC 3141 (Admin); [2019] PTSR 668; [2018] WLR(D) 767, QBD (Ouseley J)

  Subsequent citations: 6.
  PLANNING — Development — Environmental considerations
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  PLANNING — Development — Environmental considerations — Secretary of State rejecting inspector’s recommendation that planning permission be granted for surface coal mining — Whether Secretary of State adopting lawful approach in balancing environmental benefits and adverse effects of proposed development — Whether ignoring biodiversity benefits in overall assessment — Whether giving adequate reasons for rejecting inspector’s conclusion — National Planning Policy Framework (2012), para 149

  PLANNING — Development — Environmental considerations — Secretary of State rejecting inspector’s recommendation that planning permission be granted for surface coal mining — Whether Secretary of State adopting lawful approach in balancing environmental benefits and adverse effects of proposed development — Whether wrongly ignoring biodiversity benefits in overall assessment — Whether giving adequate reasons for rejecting inspector’s conclusion — National Planning Policy Framework (2012), para 149

  1 Statutory Instrument considered
• Samuels v Birmingham City Council

  27 Oct 2015 [2015] EWCA Civ 1051; [2016] PTSR 558; [2016] 4 All ER 589; [2015] WLR (D) 435, CA

  19 Feb 2018 (appn all) [2018] PTSR 800, SC(E) (Baroness Hale of Richmond PSC, Lord Sumption, Lord Hughes JJSC)

  12 Jun 2019 [2019] UKSC 28; [2019] PTSR 1229; [2019] 4 All ER 773; [2019] WLR (D) 355; Case details, SC(E) (Baroness Hale of Richmond PSC, Lord Carnwath, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Kitchin JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 neutral; most recently considered: 2022. Subsequent citations: 3.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Homeless persons — Whether “homeless intentionally”
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Homeless persons — Whether “homeless intentionally” — Landlord terminating tenancy after applicant defaulting on rent payments — Local housing authority refusing application for housing assistance on ground applicant intentionally homeless — Whether property “affordable” and therefore reasonable for applicant to continue to occupy — Whether social security benefits to be taken into account as applicant’s income when determining whether accommodation affordable — Housing Act 1996, s 191(1) — Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 1996 (SI 1996/3204), art 2

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Homeless persons — Whether “homeless intentionally” — Landlord terminating tenancy after applicant defaulting on rent payments — Local housing authority refusing application for housing assistance on ground applicant intentionally homeless — Whether property affordable and therefore reasonable for applicant to continue to occupy — Whether all social security benefits to be taken into account as applicant’s income when determining whether accommodation affordable — Housing Act 1996 (c 52), s 191(1) — Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 1996 (SI 1996/3204), art 2

  1 Case considered

  1 Statute considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered

• Kamara v Southwark London Borough Council (Leach v St Albans City and District Council, Piper v South Bucks District Council)

  12 Jul 2018 [2018] EWCA Civ 1616; [2019] PTSR 279; [2018] WLR(D) 437, CA (Patten, David Richards LJJ)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Homeless persons — Review of local authority decision
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Homeless persons — Review of local authority decision — Local housing authorities informing applicants of right to make representations to reviewer orally and/or in writing — Whether local authorities required to inform applicant of right to demand face-to-face meeting — Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/71), reg 8(2)

  2 Case(s) considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered

• Dulgheriu v Ealing London Borough Council

  02 Jul 2018 [2018] EWHC 1667 (Admin); [2019] PTSR 706; [2018] 4 All ER 881, QBD (Turner J)

  21 Aug 2019 (National Council for Civil Liberties (trading as Liberty) intervening) [2019] EWCA Civ 1490; [2020] 1 WLR 609; [2020] PTSR 79; [2020] 3 All ER 545; [2019] WLR (D) 486, CA (Sir Terence Etherton MR, King, Nicola Davies LJJ)

  10 Mar 2020 (appn dis) [2020] 1 WLR 2612; [2020] PTSR 992, SC(E) (Lord Reed PSC, Lord Carnwath, Lady Black JJSC)

  Subsequent citations: 8.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Powers — Public spaces protection order
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Powers — Public spaces protection order — Local authority making public spaces protection order to control campaigning outside abortion clinic — Order imposing penalties for persons continuing to campaign inside “safe zone” immediately surrounding clinic — Whether statutory criteria for making order met — Whether “detrimental effect” of activities objective test — Whether clinic users’ Convention right to respect for private life engaged — Whether balance of competing Convention rights correctly undertaken — Whether order “necessary in democratic society” — Whether order lawfully made — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, arts 8, 9, 10, 11 — Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (c 12), ss 59, 66, 72

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Powers — Public spaces protection order — Local authority making public spaces protection order to control campaigning outside abortion clinic — Order imposing penalties for persons continuing to campaign inside safe zone immediately surrounding clinic — Whether statutory criteria for making order met — Whether “those in the locality” including users of clinic — Whether clinic users’ Convention right to respect for private life engaged — Whether balance of competing Convention rights correctly undertaken — Whether order lawfully made — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, arts 8, 9, 10, 11 — Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (c 12), ss 59, 72(1)

  8 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  2 Statutes considered

• Lomax v Gosport Borough Council (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening)

  01 Aug 2018 [2018] EWCA Civ 1846; [2019] PTSR 167; [2018] WLR(D) 506, CA (Lewison, David Richards, Coulson LJJ )

  Subsequent citations: 3.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Homeless persons — Accommodation available for occupation
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Homeless persons — Accommodation available for occupation — Applicant with severe disability living in adapted bungalow in isolated location — Applicant no longer having help from partner as carer — Applicant wishing to move nearer family presenting as homeless — Whether reasonable for applicant to continue to occupy current accommodation — Appropriate test and relevant factors — Whether public sector equality duty correctly applied — Housing Act 1996 (c 52), ss 175, 177 — Equality Act 2010 (c 15), s 149

  3 Case(s) considered

  2 Statutes considered
• R (TP) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening)

  14 Jun 2018 [2018] EWHC 1474 (Admin); [2019] PTSR 238; [2018] WLR(D) 365, QBD (Lewis J)

  03 May 2019 [2019] EWHC 1116 (Admin); [2019] PTSR 2123; [2019] WLR(D) 267, QBD (Swift J)

  29 Jan 2020 [2020] EWCA Civ 37; [2020] PTSR 1785; [2020] WLR(D) 70, CA (Sir Terence Etherton MR, Singh, Rose LJJ)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 neutral; 1 negative. Subsequent citations: 29.
  SOCIAL SECURITY — Welfare benefits — Universal credit
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  SOCIAL SECURITY — Welfare benefits — Universal credit — Reduction in total cash payment by way of income support for severely disabled claimants under universal credit scheme — Whether universal credit scheme discriminatory — Whether implementation arrangements discriminatory — Whether discrimination justified — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 14; Pt II, art 1 — Welfare Reform Act 2012 (c 5) — Universal Credit Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/376) — Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/1230)

  SOCIAL SECURITY — Welfare benefits — Universal credit — Reduction in total cash payment by way of income support for severely disabled claimants under universal credit scheme — Whether universal credit scheme discriminatory — Whether discrimination justified — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 14 — Welfare Reform Act 2012 (c 5) — Universal Credit Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/376) — Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/1230), reg 4A (as inserted by Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) (SDP Gateway) Amendment Regulations 2019 (SI 2019/10), reg 2(3))

  SOCIAL SECURITY — Welfare benefits — Universal credit — Reduction in total cash payment by way of income support for severely disabled claimants under universal credit scheme — Whether universal credit scheme discriminatory — Whether implementation arrangements discriminatory — Whether discrimination justified — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 14, Pt II, art 1 — Welfare Reform Act 2012 (c 5) — Universal Credit Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/376) — Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/1230), reg 4A (as inserted by Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) (SDP Gateway) Amendment Regulations 2019 (SI 2019/10), reg 2(3))

  14 Case(s) considered

  2 Statutes considered

  2 Statutory Instruments considered

• Worley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

  17 Jan 2017 [2017] UKUT 25 (AAC), UT

  30 Jan 2019 [2019] EWCA Civ 15; [2019] PTSR 1667; [2019] WLR(D) 53, CA (Ryder, Sharp, Peter Jackson LJJ)

  01 Jul 2019 (appn dis) [2019] PTSR 1736, SC(E) (Baroness Hale of Richmond PSC, Lady Black, Lord Sales JJSC)

  Subsequent citations: 1.
  SOCIAL SECURITY — Personal independence payment — Transitional provisions
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  SOCIAL SECURITY — Personal independence payment — Transitional provisions — Disabled claimant in receipt of disability living allowance notifying Secretary of State of change of circumstances — Secretary of State inviting claimant to apply for personal independence payment in accordance with transitional regulations — Claimant’s entitlement to new benefit assessed at higher rate — Transitional provisions providing for payment of new benefit to take effect four weeks after determination and 30 weeks after application — Whether payment of increased rate of benefit to be backdated — Whether claimant falling within subset of transferring claimants falling outside scope of transitional provisions — Whether failure to backdate payment of new benefit unlawfully discrimination in breach of Convention rights — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 14, Pt II, art 1 — Personal Independence Payment (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/387) (as amended by Personal Independence Payment (Transitional Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations (SI 2013/2231), reg 2(2) and Personal Independence Payment (Transitional Provisions) (Amendment) (No 2) Regulations (SI 2013/2689), reg 2(3)), regs 2(a), 3, 17, 20 — Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/380), reg 38(4)

  3 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered

• R (Rudling) v General Medical Council

  20 Dec 2018 [2018] EWHC 3582 (Admin); [2019] PTSR 843; [2019] WLR(D) 8, QBD (Farbey J)

  Subsequent citations: 2.
  MEDICAL PRACTITIONER — Disciplinary proceedings — Allegation
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  MEDICAL PRACTITIONER — Disciplinary proceedings — Allegation — Claimant doctor informed of allegations of unfitness to practise — Allegations referred to investigation committee for public hearing — Updated draft particulars of allegations including new material concerning claimant’s probity — Whether breach of requirements to inform claimant of allegation and to invite response — Whether investigation committee entitled to admit new material — General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules Order of Council 2004 (SI 2004/2608) (as amended by General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) (Amendment) Rules Order of Council 2009 (SI 2009/1913), Sch, r 3), Sch, rr 7, 8

  MEDICAL PRACTITIONER — Disciplinary proceedings — Allegation — Claimant doctor informed of allegations of unfitness to practise — Allegations referred to investigation committee for public hearing — Updated draft particulars of allegations including new material concerning claimant’s probity — Whether breach of requirements to inform claimant of allegation and to invite response — Whether investigation committee entitled to admit new material — General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules Order of Council 2004 (SI 2004/2608) (as amended by General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) (Amendment) Rules Order of Council 2009 (SI 2009/1913), Sch, r 4), Sch, rr 7, 8

  1 Case considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered

• R (CK Properties (Theydon Bois) Ltd) v Epping Forest District Council

  29 Jun 2018 [2018] EWHC 1649 (Admin); [2019] PTSR 183; [2018] WLR(D) 418, QBD (Supperstone J)

  Subsequent citations: 1.
  PLANNING — Development plan document — Proceedings questioning validity
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  PLANNING — Development plan document — Proceedings questioning validity — Local planning authority deciding to submit draft local plan strategy for independent examination — Claimant seeking judicial review of decision — Whether statutory ouster clause precluding claim for judicial review — Whether breach of procedural requirements rendering authority’s decision unlawful — Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (c 5), ss 17(8), 37(3), 113(2) — Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/767), Pt 6, reg 19

  PLANNING — Development plan document — Proceedings questioning validity — Local planning authority submitting draft local plan strategy for independent examination but excluding claimant’s site from residential development allocation — Claimant seeking judicial review of decision — Whether statutory ouster clause precluding claim for judicial review — Whether breach of procedural requirements rendering authority’s decision unlawful — Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (c 5) (as amended by Planning Act 2008 (c 29), ss 180(6)(b), 185 and Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (c 2), s 91, Sch 16, para 8(2)), ss 17(8), 37(3), 113(2) — Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/767), reg 19

  2 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered