The decision of Murray J in Haringey Council v Simawi (2018) EWHC 2733 (QB), Local Government Bulletin 23 October 2018, has now been upheld on 31 October 2019, by the Court of Appeal, (2019) EWCA Civ 1770. Lewison LJ, with whom Bean and Baker LJJ agreed, began his Judgment as follows:-
“1. The issue on this appeal is whether the statutory provisions governing succession to secure tenancies unlawfully discriminate against Mr Simawi because of his status.”
In cases under Article 14 of the ECHR, in conjunction with Article 1/1, J.D. and A v UK, concerned with benefit reductions, the Strasbourg Court, on 24 October 2019, stated general principles, including the following:-
In Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association v SoS for DEFRA (2019) EWHC 2813 (Admin) Morris J considered a number of consultation and other challenges. He summarised general principles on consultation at paragraph 27. From paragraph 109 he addressed together consultation and appearance of pre-determination. He said as to the law:-
The Government has introduced a 130 Clause Environment Bill, with 20 Schedules, in the context of exiting the EU. Parts 1 and 2 relate to Environmental Governance, that had been the subject of a Draft Bill, including environmental targets, improvement plans, environmental monitoring and environmental principles, and a new Office for Environmental Protection. Part 3 relates to Waste and Resource Efficiency; Part 4 to Air Quality and Environmental Recall; Part 5 to Water; Part 6 to Nature and Biodiversity; and Part 7 to Conservation Covenants. The provisions include recycling and other obligations upon local authorities, pollution control and other powers for local authorities, and the mandating of net gain in biodiversity through the planning system.
In Curless v Shell International Ltd (2019) EWCA Civ 1710 the Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of an Employment Judge to strike out parts of a disability discrimination and victimisation claim on the basis that they referred to an email which attracted legal advice privilege. The employer (SI Ltd) was seeking advice on whether the claimant (C) –who had already made a claim of a failure to make reasonable adjustments – might be either offered voluntary severance or dismissed on the grounds of redundancy as part of a restructuring exercise. The Court of Appeal viewed this as the sort of advice which employment lawyers give ‘day in, day out’. It did not agree with the EAT’s interpretation that this was advice to act in an underhand or iniquitous way by ‘cloaking’ a discriminatory dismissal as a redundancy. Read more »
On the banks of the Manchester Ship Canal, Vauxhall Motors has a large manufacturing plant. It drains surface water and treated industrial effluent into the Canal. It does so pursuant to a licence from the Canal Company. This is a valuable right, similar to an easement. It is terminable if Vauxhall are late in their payment of the licence fee. Inadvertently, Vauxhall was late with one instalment. The Canal Company terminated the Licence. Vauxhall asked the High Court to grant equitable relief from forfeiture. Relief was granted. The Court of Appeal upheld the grant of relief: (2018) EWCA Civ 1100. The position has now been addressed by the Supreme Court, who have unanimously dismissed the Canal Company’s appeal: (2019) UKSC 46, especially from paragraph 35, per Lord Briggs. Read more »
Guiste v Lambeth LBC (2019) EWCA Civ 1758 was a housing (further) appeal which, as so often, raised the question whether the appellant had a priority need for homelessness accommodation on the basis that he was vulnerable, within the meaning of Section 189(1)(c) of the Housing Act 1996 (“HA 1996”). Henderson LJ, with whom Rose LJ and Theis J agreed, said, at paragraph 45, that the legal principles which apply in deciding whether an appellant is vulnerable, within the meaning of that provision, are mainly to be derived from the two leading cases of Hotak (in the Supreme Court) and Panayiotou (in the Court of Appeal). Henderson LJ stated, at paragraph 46, that the following principles may be derived from Hotak:-
“(a) Section 189(1)(c) is concerned with an applicant’s vulnerability if he is homeless. It directs an enquiry as to his situation if he remains or becomes a person without accommodation: see the judgment of Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC at [37]. Read more »
A development must be carried out fully in accordance with the permission said to authorise it, and cannot lawfully be completed if it has become physically impossible to complete it fully in accordance with that permission, unless the permission is to be construed as authorising independent acts of development. So confirmed in Hillside Parks Ltd v Snowdonia National Park Authority (2019) EWHC 2587 (QB).
In R ( BARKING AND DAGENHAM COLLEGE ) v OFFICE FOR STUDENTS (2019) EWHC 2667 ( Admin) Chamberlain J addressed the proper approach to the grant of interim relief, and in particular interim relief to restrain publication by a public authority. He said, at para 35, that the right of a section of the public to receive information which a public authority wishes to communicate to them in what it regards as the public interest must carry very substantial weight in the balancing exercise. He said, at para 37, that the authorities rightly impose a high hurdle : “ pressing grounds “; “ the most exceptional circumstances” or “ exceptional circumstances” for the grant of interim relief to restrain publication of a report by a public authority. He said, at para 39, that it is difficult to see why the strength of the public interest in favour of publication should depend on whether the public authority is acting pursuant to a duty or a power.