In Underwood v Bounty (2022) EWHC 888 ( QB ) claims for breach of the Data Protection Act Principles and for privacy/misuse of private information failed. Nicklin J reiterated at para 50 in relation to the tort of misuse of private information that liability is determined using a 2 stage test: (1) whether the claimant has “a reasonable expectation” of privacy in the relevant information; and, if so (2) whether that is outweighed by “countervailing interests”.
In Somerset County Council v NHS Somerset (2022) EWFC 31 the President of the Family Division reiterates two fundamental principles of constitutional law : –
London Parks & Gardens Trust v Minister of State (2022) EWHC 829 (Admin) concerns whether there will be “substantial harm” to heritage assets, and consideration of the impact of a proposed development on relevant heritage assets. The “high test” is whether potential harm will be: “substantial”, rather than “less than substantial” for the purposes of the NPPF, that is a serious degree of harm to the asset’s significance. The significance of the historic asset does not have to be “drained away”. The test is “substantial harm”, not any gloss, such as “draining away”.
In Soteria v IBM (2022) EWCA Civ 440 the Court of Appeal holds that an exclusion clause, in a contract of sale, which purported to exclude liability, for “indirect or consequential losses, or for loss of profit, revenue or savings”, did NOT preclude the buyer from recovering expenditure that it had incurred in anticipation of the contract, but which was wasted, as a result of the supplier’s repudiation.
In R (SHEAKH) v LAMBETH LBC (2022) EWCA Civ 457 a challenge to the authority’s discharge of the PSED failed in relation to 3 Experimental Traffic Orders relating to Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. At para 10 the. Court of Appeal emphasized 5 points: (1) Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 does not require a substantive result; (2) Nor does it prescribe a particular procedure; (3) It does however imply a duty of reasonable enquiry; and (4) It requires a decision-maker to understand the obvious equality impacts of a decision before adopting a policy; (5) Courts should not engage in unduly legalistic investigation of the way in which an authority has assessed the impact of the decision on the equality needs. See also paras 11-18 inc for an update on the BRACKING Principles.
In Biden v Waverley BC (2022) EWCA Civ 442 the Court of Appeal is concerned with sufficiency of enquiries made to determine the suitability of accommodation offered to a homeless applicant with protected characteristics of disability and gender reassignment. At para 48 Macur LJ says that the enquiries to be made are those “necessary fairly to make a decision” regarding the suitability of accommodation for the applicant. Subject to this, the “scope and scale” of the necessary inquiries to be made by a local housing authority is a matter for them. The Court should not intervene unless satisfied that no reasonable authority could have been satisfied on the basis of the inquiries made. Asplin and Coulson LJJ agreed.
In Global 100 Ltd v Jimenez (2022) UKUT 50 (LC), a case on “property guardians” and the definition of Houses in Multiple Occupation in Section 254(2) of the Housing Act 2004, the Upper Tribunal says, at para 15, that: “Effective regulation and action by local housing authorities to reduce risks to the health and wellbeing of residents of repurposed or converted living accommodation is as an important an objective as it has ever been.” It is “important” that the statutory definition of HMO is not interpreted so narrowly as to frustrate the achievement of the statutory purpose. See also para 46.
The Supreme Court has given permission to appeal in R (Day) v Shropshire Council about a dispute over what happens when a local authority disposes of land which is subject to a statutory trust for public recreational services without complying with the relevant statutory requirements.
See R (Good Law Project) v SoS (2022) EWCA Civ 355 at para 39 on the need for promptness and speed in judicial review claims generally, and procurement challenges in particular, at para 41 on the importance of valid service of claim forms, and at paras 78-80 inclusive applications for extension of time. At para 57 the Court of Appeal says that, provided the Defendant has done nothing to put obstacles in the Claimant’s way, a potential Defendant is under no obligation to give positive assistance to the Claimant to serve. The potential Defendant can sit back and await developments. There is no duty on the Defendant to warn a Claimant that valid service of a claim form has not been effected.
The Combined Authorities (Borrowing) Regulations 2022, S.I. 2022/358, provide the North of Tyne, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire Mayoral Cas with power to borrow money for any function.