Planning Analysis: In Dean Super Quarry, the court refused permission for judicial review of the perceived failure by Cornwall Council to take particular steps to enforce a breach of planning control. The decision upholds the principle that local planning authorities (LPAs) have wide discretion in deciding whether to take enforcement action against breaches of planning control and if so, what steps to take and when. The courts will not intervene unless extraordinary circumstances apply.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Karl Anderson, barrister at 4 Stone Buildings, examines the Court of Appeal’s decision that a transfer of property from a company which later went into liquidation, to its director and majority shareholder, was invalid—as was the company’s buy-back of its shares. The court held that the transfer of property had been made without authority and the director/shareholder could not rely on the principle in Re Duomatic Ltd [1969] 1 All ER 161; nor was he entitled to relief under section 1157 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). It also held that the share buy-back did not comply with CA 2006, s 691(2) and was therefore void.

Commercial analysis: Oliver Browne, a partner at Latham & Watkins (London) LLP, examines a High Court decision that the defendant property owner had validly terminated its agreements with the claimant property management companies. After the defendant had given notice of termination on the grounds of various breaches concerning the claimants' designated person responsible for performing the services under the agreements, the court found that the defendant had not accepted that that person was to be replaced, had not affirmed the agreements and was not estopped from alleging that the claimants had acted in breach of the agreements.

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) found that a contractor had been entitled to an extension of time for completion where progress of the works had been affected by concurrent causes of delay. However, the contractor was not entitled to any further payment from the employer—the employer had lawfully terminated the contract before completion, and was entitled to recover and set off the cost of engaging a replacement contractor, which would extinguish any amount owed to the contractor. Written by Helen Dennis, barrister of 4 Pump Court.

Commercial analysis: On 18 October 2017, George Fisken Ltd (GFL) and Bernard Carl entered into an agreement by which Mr Carl sold a classic Ferrari motor car to GFL for US$44m. The written sale agreement noted that Mr Carl did not have possession of the car’s gearbox which was understood to be with Cenepa, a mechanic in California, but subsequently misplaced, and that an adjustment in the price had been made accordingly. The agreement required Mr Carl to use his best efforts to deliver the gearbox to GFL, if necessary pursuing third parties other than Canepa, in certain circumstances give rise to additional liability upon GFL. After the gearbox had been located, GFL claimed delivery up. Mr Carl resisted this, at least without the payment of a further fee of US$500,000 to which he claimed entitlement under those outcomes set out in the sale agreement. This dispute concerned the interpretation of the agreement, while also considering principles of agency, estoppel by convention, and remedies for breach of contract. Written by Graeme Kirk, barrister, at Lamb Chambers.

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) held that the defendant homeowners were in repudiatory breach of contract, where they had wrongly concluded that the contractor’s suspension of works was itself repudiatory and made clear that the contractor should not return to site. The court was also required to consider whether the contract had been a cost plus or fixed price contract.

Planning analysis: The court quashed a decision to grant planning permission for the redevelopment of buildings in which the claimant’s photographic studio business was located. The challenge was based upon the fact that a considerable amount of information concerning viability issues provided by the developer was not published by the council. The information which was published was internally inconsistent and did not enable objectors to assess the compliance of the scheme with the council’s affordable housing policy. The case contains what is likely to become the leading analysis of a council’s disclosure obligations in light of new guidance in Planning Policy Guidance (PPG). The court also considered the effect of the council’s planning code for councilors and whether it had the effect of stifling the legitimate ability of residents to lobby their councilors. Written by Andrew Fraser-Urquhart QC, barrister, at Francis Taylor Building.

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) refused to grant summary judgment against the claimant, in a claim brought against a fire engineering consultant in tort. The court was not persuaded that the claimant had no realistic prospect of establishing that the defendant had assumed a duty of care to it, in respect of economic loss.

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) refused to strike out a claim against a structural engineer for wasted costs and repayment of fees. The court was required to consider complex points concerning professionals’ scope of duty, and the circumstances in which a party may claim repayment of a professional’s fees.

Personal Injury analysis: Following the judgment in Mark v Universal Coatings, Robert O’Leary, barrister at Crown Office Chambers, advises that what appeared to be mandatory requirements in all personal injury claims will not necessarily be applied as rigorously in complex cases.

Corporate Crime analysis: The recent High Court decision in the case of Wilcox v Survey Roofing Group considers aspects of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and the Work at Height Regulations 2005. Chris Gillespie, barrister at 2 Hare Court Chambers, discusses the case.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Benn Richards, partner at Clarke Willmott LLP, examines the decision of the High Court in Currie v Thornley and another, which found that a deed of indemnity signed by directors and shareholders of a company in a members voluntary liquidation (MVL), covered the liability of that company to pay accelerated payment notices (APNs) for the company’s tax liability issued by HMRC.