Case C-405/16P, Germany v Commission, CJEU Judgment on 28 March 2019, is concerned with aid supporting renewable energy. The CJEU said:-
Contractual Interpretation
April 1st, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and ContractsThe issue before the Court of Appeal (Longmore, David Richards and Leggatt LJJ) in Merthyr (South Wales) Ltd v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council (2019) EWCA Civ 526 was one of interpretation of a contract to establish an escrow account.
Participation in public contract
April 1st, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and ContractsCase C-101/18, Idi v Arcadis, CJEU Judgment on 28 March 2019, concerns the exclusion of Idi from participating in a tendering procedure for a public services contract.
Waste
April 1st, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Environment, Highways and LeisureTwo interesting Judgments of the CJEU on 28 March 2019: Joined Cases C-487/17 to C489/17, Verlezza v Vetreco, and Case C-60/18, Tallina v Keskkonnaamet. The former is concerned with the classification of hazardous waste in circumstances where the waste may be assigned codes for both hazardous and non-hazardous waste. The latter is concerned with re-use and recovery of waste.
Appeal out of time
March 27th, 2019 by James Goudie KC in HousingIn Tower Hamlets London Borough Council v Abdullah Al Ahmed (2019) EWHC 749 (QB) Dove J considered whether an appeal to the County Court in a homelessness case should be treated as out of time under Section 204 of the Housing Act 1996. Section 204(2A)(b) provides that the Court may give permission for an appeal to be brought after the prescribed 21 day period, but only if the Court is satisfied that there is “good reason”. Dove J said:-
“11. A number of important points need to be taken into account when approaching the exercise of discretion under section 204(2A) (b) and considering whether in a case where permission to appeal is sought after the 21 day time limit there is “good reason” for the failure to bring the claim in time. The first point is that the merits of the substance of the appeal are no part of the consideration of this question. … Read more »
Officer reports to committee
March 27th, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and ContractsIn Thompson v Conwy County Borough Council (2019) EWHC 746 (Admin) Dove J addressed at paragraphs 20-22 inclusive the law relating to the discretion whether or not to grant planning permission, and at paragraph 24 the legal principles governing an allegation that members have been misled by the advice which they have received from their officers. In that latter connection Dove J said:-
“Firstly, the case-law has made clear that it is a reasonable inference where members follow the recommendation of their officers that they can be taken to have adopted the reasoning and explanation provided in the Committee report and any other presentation to them by officers. When approaching the examination of the Committee report the courts have made clear that criticisms will not merit consideration unless the overall effect of the report has been to significantly mislead the Committee about the material considerations bearing on their decision. Reports should also be approached on the basis that they are being read by a knowledgeable readership in the form of a Planning Committee of trained council members, with a substantial local background knowledge of the area which they represent and a broad familiarity with local development plan policies. Thus officer reports should be read as a whole and in a common sense manner, bearing in mind they are addressed to an informed readership rather than construed as a statute or other similar legal instrument, and that they were intended to be a practical decision-taking tool.”
Intentional Homelessness
March 25th, 2019 by James Goudie KC in HousingIn Godson v Enfield LBC [2019] EWCA Civ 486 Lewison LJ identified the principal intentional homelessness issues on the appeal under the Housing Act 1996, as amended by the Localism Act 2011, as being:-
Voter ID pilots for local elections
March 21st, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Elections and BylawsR (Coughlan) v Minister for the Cabinet Office, Braintree District Council Interested Party (2019) EWHC 641 (Admin) concerns a decision to introduce pilot schemes to require voters to present either one form of photo ID or up to two forms of non-photo ID. Whether the decision was lawful turns on the proper interpretation of Section 10 in Part II of the Representation of the People Act 2000 (“the 2000 Act”). This empowers Orders in respect of approved pilot schemes for voting in local government elections. In essence, the central question is whether the voter ID pilots are schemes within the meaning and scope of Section 10(2)(a), that is whether they are schemes for testing “how voting … is to take place”. Supperstone J rejected the challenge. He was satisfied (paragraph 75) that the Section 10(1) power was intended to allow proposed changes to local government electoral procedures from time to time existing to be tested. He continued that he agreed with the following points:-
Fraud
March 21st, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and LitigationIn Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd (2019) UKSC 13 a seven Justice Supreme Court has unanimously held, allowing the appeal from the Court of Appeal, that a person who applies to set aside an earlier judgment based on fraud does not have to demonstrate that evidence of fraud could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence before the earlier trial.
Legitimate Expectation
March 19th, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and ContractsIn R (Alliance of Turkish Businesspeople Ltd) v SSHD (2019) EWHC 603 (Admin) issues were raised about a substantive legitimate expectation derived from published guidance and a change of policy by SSHD. The claim for judicial review was dismissed. The Judge did find both that there was a “clear and unambiguous”