CONTRACTUAL CHANGES

November 22nd, 2024 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and Contracts

In R (Cobalt Data Centre) v HMRC (2024) UKSC 40, concerned with a building contract relating to an Enterprise Zone, the Supreme Court considers, at paras 125-156 inc, how to determine whether a contractual change takes effect as a variation to, or replacement of, an existing contract. That is held to turn generally on the parties’ objectively ascertained intention.

 

RECTIFICATION OF CONTRACTS

November 14th, 2024 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and Contracts

In NATIONAL UNION OF RAIL MARITIME AND TRANSPORT WORKERS v TYNE AND WEAR PASSENGER TRANSPORT EXECUTIVE (2024) UKSC 37 the Supreme Court considers the nature of rectification. The basic role of rectification is not to correct mistakes in transactions. It is to correct mistakes in recording transactions. It is not confined to documents of particular types. It may be refused if granting it would unfairly prejudice third party rights.

 

VACANT PREMISES

November 12th, 2024 by James Goudie KC in Land, Goods and Services

The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 ( Commencement No.6 ) Regulations 2024, SI. 2024/1138) bring into force on 2 December 2024 provisions in the Act which provide for local authorities to conduct rental auctions of vacant high street and town centre premises, set out the key terms used, and deal with procedures and powers.

 

APPEALS

November 7th, 2024 by James Goudie KC in Planning and Environmental

In KEEP CHISWELL GREEN v SoS () 2024 ) EWHC 2723 ( Admin ) the Claimant  on a planning appeal was not allowed. To adsvance submissions based on new material. It is incumbent on parties, including unrepresented parties, to place before the planning decision-maker the material upon which they rely.

 

FGM

November 7th, 2024 by James Goudie KC in Local Authority Powers

In AS v WALTHAM FOREST LBC (2024) EWHC 2808 ( Fam ) the Court set out general guidance about the manner in which Orders protecting against the risk of Female Genital Mutilation should be dealt with by local authorities.

 

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION

November 5th, 2024 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation

In ABACUS v SoS (2024) EWHC 2753 (Admin) Chamberlain J refused to stay judicial review proceedings challenging provisions of primary legislation. The legislation itself  had completed its Parliamentary process and received Royal Assent. However, it had not yet been commenced. In the particular circumstances, the balance of convenience test applied and favoured allowing the claims to proceed, at least until the stage of determining whether permission to apply for Judicial Review should or should not be granted.

 

NEW TOWNS

November 4th, 2024 by James Goudie KC in Planning and Environmental

The role of the New Towns Taskforce is to advise Ministers on appropriate locations for significant communities. These will include large scale urban extension and regeneration schemes. Locations are to be recommended to Ministers by July 2025. The Taskforce has made a call for evidence by 13 December 2024.

 

DANGEROUS CLADDING

November 4th, 2024 by James Goudie KC in Housing

A National Audit Office Report reveals that about 60% of buildings at risk have yet to be identified. The Report states that stripping cladding from 9,000-12,000 buildings in England more than 11 metres high could cost between £12.6 million and £22.4 million. Work will not finish for over another 10 years.

 

CANCELLATION /SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION

October 31st, 2024 by James Goudie KC in Social Care

Two FTT decisions consider the above : Little Oaks Grimsby Ltd v Ofsted (2024) UKFTT 889 in England and Pleasant Valley Care Ltd v Welsh Ministers (2024) UK FTT 911 in Wales.

In the English case the appeal to the FTT was against Ofsted’s decision to suspend the registration to provide childcare at Little Oaks Nursery. The right of appeal was under Regulation 12 of 2008 Childcare Regulations, pursuant to Section 69 of the Childcare Act 2006. The applicable test is set out in Regulation, by reference to “ risk of harm “ as defined in Regulation 13, and for a duration in accordance with Regulations 10 and 11. The burden of satisfying the threshold test under Regulation 9 and of justifying the decision in terms of a legitimate public interest objective and proportionality is upon the Respondent. The standard of proof is “ reasonable cause to believe”. That falls somewhere between balance of probability and reasonable cause to suspect. The contemplated  risk must be one of significant harm.

In the Welsh case the appeal was under Section 26 of the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016. It was against cancellation of registration as a domiciliary care provider in respect of the regulated activity of personal care. Section 4 of the Act sets out the general objectives of the statutory scheme. Sections 14 and 15 relate to cancellation of registration, and sections 16 and 17 to improvement notices. The Tribunal determines the issue afresh as of the time of the appeal. It makes findings of fact about breaches of relevant requirements and decides whether cancellation of registration is a proportionate and necessary step.

 

INJUNCTIONS

October 30th, 2024 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation

In THURROCK COUNCIL and ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (2024) EWHC 2750 (KB) Bourne J considered, at paras 40-58 inc,  principles emerging from the case law which are relevant to disputes about PROTEST ACTIVITY taking place on or affecting the USE OF THE HIGHWAY. Whilst the public generally has a licence to to be on the highway, if they exceed that licence by doing something on that land which they do not have permission to do, such as TUNNELLING, they commit TRESPASS. Trespass is a tort of STRICT LIABILITY. A Claimant does NOT have to show that have to show damage. The exercise of ECHR rights pursuant to Arts 10 & 11 cannot normally justify a trespass. It is a PUBLIC NUISANCE to obstruct or hinder the FREE PASSAGE of the public along the highway.