SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL v BC ( 2025 ) EWCA Civ 719, a case on Section 20 of the Children Act 1989 and the provision of accommodation, addresses delay in the bringing of judicial review proceedings. The Court says at para 18 that “ in recent times there has been a greater emphasis on the tight time limits in judicial review”; and at para 43 that “ judicial review is not a regime where a claimant is entitled to wait, dotting every available ”i” and crossing every possible “ t “ before making a claim for judicial review.” “ If documents are potentially important and outstanding, then one possibility is for a claimant to issue proceedings, and then seek to delay the hearing of the permission application until after disclosure. What a claimant cannot do is to delay issuing proceedings in the hope that something might turn up on disclosure.”
DELAY IN JUDICIAL REVIEW
June 11th, 2025 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation
ASSET OF COMMUNITY VALUE
June 11th, 2025 by James Goudie KC in Land, Goods and ServicesDAIRYGEN Ltd ( trading as “ the Shire Horse “ ) v DERBYSHIRE DALES DISTRICT COUNCIUL ( 2025 ) UKFTT 669 ( GRC ) considered whether the closed Shire Horse pub was a asset of community value under Section 88 of the Localism Act 2011. The issue was whether , given that the user under consideration had already ceased, whether it was “ realistic to think “ that there is a time in the next 5 years when there could be non-ancillary use of the building that would further social interests or social well-being of the local community.
The Tribunal found that the likelihood of use as a pub/restaurant in the near future was not realistic. The prospect of a buyer being found who would purchase the former pub and restore it was unrealistic in light of its troubled trading history and its location within a sparsely populated village.
The DRAGONFLY case ( 2025 ) UKUT 51 ( AA ) was distinguished having regard to the pub there being in a busy urban area rather than rural location.
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT 1980 Section 80
June 10th, 2025 by James Goudie KC in Environment, Highways and LeisureA noise nuisance abatement notice was held to be valid in ENFIELD LBC v BECKFORD (2025) EWHC 1218. The notice did not have to specify the steps the recipient had to take. It was for the recipient to decide how to achieve the abatement.
REMOTE ATTENDANCE AND PROXY VOTING
June 9th, 2025 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and ContractsMHCLG has announced that the Government plans to legislate in relation to both the above “ when Parliamentary time allows “. It is planned to PERMIT local authorities to develop their own “ locally appropriate policies “ IF they decide to hold REMOTE MEETINGS. On proxy voting, it is planned to REQUIRE principal councils to implement PROXY VOTING SCHEMES, to provide consistency for Members who are absent when they become a new parent or for serious or long-term illness. The requirement will apply to Meetings of FULL COUNCIL. For all other Meetings, proxy voting may be used, but will not be required. All this is in the Response to Consultation.
ECHR Article 1/1
May 29th, 2025 by James Goudie KC in Human Rights and Public Sector Equality DutyIn MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL CO LTD v SoS (2025) EWCA Civ 676, a challenge by a canal owner to confirmation of a CPO, allowing the creation of a new pipe for the discharge into the canal of water and treated effluent, Males LJ reiterates, at para 95, that COMPENSATION for loss of property rights under Article 1/1 need not equate to common law damages, in this case damages payable in a claim for nuisance.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT
May 29th, 2025 by James Goudie KC in Planning and EnvironmentalIn ROSS V SoS (“)”%) EWHC 1183 (Admin) an application to quash a decision to grant planning permission for a solar farm fails. The Court construes the NATIONAL POLICY STATEMENT FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY. In a rapidly changing field , the Policy does not purport to lay down detailed rules for all the potential ways or purposes for which renewal energy technology might apply.
PSED
May 29th, 2025 by James Goudie KC in Human Rights and Public Sector Equality DutyIn McLEAN v ABERDEEN CITY COUNCIL (2025) CSIH 13 the Court of Session holds that the local authority’s resolution facilitating the collection of relevant information about the development of St Fittick’s Park, a public park owned by the authority, and designated in the local development plan as potentially suitable for development, was not a policy decision approving development of the park. Absent a specific development proposal and details of a proposed development, an EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT was NOT required.
ECHR ARTICLE 5
May 29th, 2025 by James Goudie KC in Human Rights and Public Sector Equality DutyECHR Article 5 confers the right to liberty. This applies save in specified cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law. One of these cases, at Article 5 (1)(d), is the detention of a minor for the of purpose of EDUCATIONAL SUPERVISION. In A LOCAL AUTHORITY V LB (2025) EWHC 1264 (Fam) the Court considers what evidence is required in order for Article 5(1)(d) to be engaged and deprivation of the minor’s liberty to be justified. The Court also considered SECURE ACCOMMODATION under Section 25 of Children Act 1989, the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to make DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY SAFEGUARDS ORDERS, and the relationship between them.
INTERPRETATION OF LEGISLATION
May 28th, 2025 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and LitigationIn DARWALL v DARTMOOR NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY (2025) UKSC 20 the appeal to the Supreme Court, on whether there was a public right to camp, turned on a short print of statutory construction (regarding the meaning of Section 10(1) of the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985). The Supreme Court stated, at paragraph 15: “Normal principles of statutory interpretation are engaged. The courts in conducting statutory interpretation are seeking to ascertain the meaning of the words used in the light of their context and the purpose of the statutory provision.” From para 17 to para 38 the Court considered the ordinary meaning of Section 10(1) and its legislative context in the 1985 Act and earlier.
The Supreme Court then addressed other aids to interpretation of Section 10, (1) Hansard material (paras 39-43), (2) the principle of legality where there is no ambiguity (paras 44-47), (3) Committee Reports (paras 48-51), and (4) Devon County Council byelaws (paras 52-53).
On the nature of the relief sought and the procedure used, the Supreme Court observed that it was a “striking feature” of the proceedings that the public was not represented. Consideration should have been given to the joinder of the Attorney General.
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
May 20th, 2025 by James Goudie KC in Land, Goods and ServicesGREAT JACKSON ST ESTATES LIMITED v THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MANCHESTER (2025) EWCA Civ 652 concerns whether restrictive covenants in a lease provide the lessor, which is also the planning authority, with practical benefits of substantial value or advantage, for the purposes of Section 84(1)(aa) and Section 84(1)(a) of the Law of Property Act 1925, in enabling the lessor to prevent a proposed development from going ahead in an uncontrolled manner. The lessor’s concern is that the proposed development might not be completed in a timely fashion or completed at all. The covenants were found to afford the Council practical benefits of substantial value to it. The Council has a legitimate strategy in continuing to influence the use of land on the fringe of the City Centre and to secure its orderly and appropriate development. That interest in the promotion and protection of the site in issue could be furthered through leasehold covenants, in addition to through the statutory planning process.
Asplin LJ, having set out, at para 47, a “helpful framework” to assist with navigating the “detailed and interlocking requirements” of Section 84(1)(aa) and (1A) said: “They are not prescriptive in any way, however, and should not be approached as if they were a rigid checklist which must be adhered to in every case.”