Planning analysis: In Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise v Secretary of State for Transport, the court held that Finch does not require decision-makers to quantify inbound aviation emissions where no recognised benchmark exists to allow a meaningful significance assessment. The judgment confirms that the treatment of such emissions, and of non-CO₂ climate effects, remains a matter of planning judgment provided the reasoning is adequately explained.

Planning analysis: In Bohm v SCLG, the court dismissed a challenge to an inspector’s decision allowing an appeal against a refusal to grant planning permission for development within a conservation area. The decision provides a useful interpretation of para 135 of the National planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which deals with non-designated heritage assets (NDHAs).

Planning analysis: This was an application for judicial review of Tower Hamlet's decision to adopt a supplementary planning document (SPD) entitled 'Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document'. The SPD set out policies on a wide range of developer obligations including in relation to financial contributions for affordable housing on the development of sites for less than 10 dwellings. The developer claimant who was in the business of developing small sites in Tower Hamlets sought to quash that part of the SPD dealing with affordable housing contributions on small sites on the basis that it was inconsistent with the London Plan, the Secretary of State directing that a similar policy should be removed from the draft London Plan. The court held that the London Plan was silent on the issue and therefore there was no inconsistency and the claim failed. Written by Mark Westmoreland Smith, barrister at Francis Taylor Building.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Restructuring plans under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) are a relatively new feature of English corporate insolvency law, having been first introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020. A restructuring plan allows a financially distressed company to restructure its debt obligations, subject to approval by at least 75% of each relevant class of the company’s creditors and the court’s sanction. Alternatively, a company may apply to court for sanction of a plan even though one or more classes of creditors does not consent (known colloquially as a ‘cross-class cram down’). In such case, dissenting creditors may make submissions to court opposing approval of the plan. In Re Madagascar Oil Ltd, the High Court upheld a restructuring plan against the objections of a dissenting creditor. In a second consequential judgment on 7 November 2025, the judge considered whether the (unsuccessful) dissenting creditor should bear any part of the costs of the sanction proceedings. Affirming that the court should be guided by the same principles that apply to Part 26 schemes of arrangement, the judge held that costs will not generally be awarded against dissenting creditors if their objections are reasonable, but that the unreasonable conduct of the creditor in this case justified an award of costs on the indemnity basis. Written by Patrick Taylor, partner, Gavin Chesney, counsel, and Louis Norton, associate, of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.

TMT analysis: The High Court has clarified a previously unresolved point regarding whether the cumulative harm caused by several imputations in a published article can be taken together to satisfy the serious harm threshold in defamation. Accepting the defendant publishers’ main argument, the court held that when assessing if a statement is defamatory for the purposes of section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013), a court cannot aggregate the impact of all relevant imputations of the statement—each imputation has to be considered individually.

Planning analysis: In Holborn Studios v Hackney BC, the court confirmed that in deciding whether to re-consult on changes to a planning application before it is determined, the question to consider is whether, without re-consultation, any of those who were entitled to be consulted on the original application will be deprived of the opportunity to make any representations they wish to make.

Planning analysis: In Enlli Angharad Williams) v Gwynedd, the High Court quashed an Article 4 direction because the council’s cabinet was misled into believing it would capture all changes between C3, C5 and C6 use classes, rather than only those amounting to a material change of use. The decision underscores that authorities must clearly explain the limited legal effect of such directions so members can properly assess their proportionality and impact on property rights.

Planning analysis: Discussing the Court of Appeal’s decision in Braintree District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others, Stephen Whale, barrister at Landmark Chambers, points out that the judgment has clear and important implications for countless planning applications for new homes in the countryside.

Planning analysis: In Luck v Bracknell BC, the High Court considered the operation of the self-build exemption under regulations 54A–54D of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, SI 2010/948, which allows individuals building their own homes to claim relief from the community infrastructure levy (CIL). The court held that a disqualifying event under regulation 54D(2)(a) (such as a sale ending the self-build intention) can occur at any time before the end of the clawback period, and that collecting authorities have no general discretion under regulation 65(7) to waive CIL liability outside the specific statutory mechanisms for transfer or abatement.

Planning analysis: In Jaks Bars & Restaurants Ltd v SSHCLG, the court quashed an inspector’s dismissal of an appeal against refusal of extended opening hours for a restaurant and bar. The court held that, although the inspector had considered the licensing impact assessment, the decision letter gave no adequate reasons for what weight had been given to it on the central issue of late-night dispersal noise. The court also held that the inspector had erred by failing to address whether the licensing regime could properly respond to the residential amenity concerns identified. The judgment is a reminder that, where planning and licensing overlap, inspectors must explain both their treatment of directly relevant evidence and their approach to the parallel regulatory regime.

The TCC has applied the Court of Appeal decision in Marcan Shipping and held that where there is material default of an unless order there is no requirement for any action to be taken as it will result in the default provisions automatically applying. This case provides an insight into what the courts will consider when determining whether there has been a material breach and, if there has been, what the defaulting party needs show when seeking relief from sanctions, which must be applied for quickly after the default.

Planning analysis: In Dharmeshkumar v SSLUHC, the High Court confirmed that extensive refurbishment works amounted to ‘development’ under section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) because they materially altered the building’s external appearance and so required express permission. The court also clarified that ambiguities in prior approvals can properly be resolved by reference to application documents and drawings, reinforcing that compliant elements remain authorised while only non-compliant works are vulnerable to enforcement.