Information law analysis: The Court of Appeal in London granted the applicants permission to appeal a decision by the High Court to strike out a claim for infringement of data protection rights. In Farley and others v Paymaster (1836) Limited (trading as Equiniti), the High Court rejected a submission that compensation could be claimed for anxiety or distress suffered as a result of the apprehension arising from the possibility of personal data being disclosed to a third party; the Court of Appeal agreed with the applicants that the High Court was wrong in law, and that the applicants had a tenable case for a cause of action of compensation for distress caused by infringement of their data protection rights, independent of whether the personal data was actually accessed by a third party. Written by Christopher Foo, associate at Ropes & Gray LLP.

Planning analysis: In Halton Borough Council v SSHCLG, the Court of Appeal held that a local authority does not act unreasonably, for costs purposes, when it withdraws support for a called-in application because its expert changes position under cross-examination. The inspector's contrary finding was quashed because it relied on a flawed premise that there had been no material change in the evidence.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has raised practical considerations for the timing of applications that a defendant has submitted to the court’s jurisdiction. It also sets out the principles to apply when determining the main place of provisions of services under article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) 44/2001 (Brussels I) as to which court has jurisdiction to hear a claim. Practical considerations as to the evidence required are also highlighted.

Local Government analysis: The Court of Appeal by a two-to-one majority, dismissed an appeal by a fourteen-year-old pupil challenging her permanent exclusion from Winchmore School, following an incident on a school skiing trip. The pupil had entered a teacher's hotel room without permission to retrieve her confiscated mobile phone, which contained a SIM card, in breach of conditions allowing her to bring the device on the trip. An Independent Review Panel initially quashed the Governing Body's decision to uphold the exclusion due to procedural impropriety, but upon reconsideration the governors again upheld the permanent exclusion. The majority in the Court of Appeal held that whilst the governors made an error in characterising the conduct as burglary, courts must not substitute their judgment for that of school decision makers who possess the experience and detailed knowledge to evaluate the seriousness of misconduct and its impact on the school community. Written by Philip Wood, principal associate at Browne Jacobson LLP.

Dispute Resolution analysis: This case provides an analysis of asymmetrical jurisdiction clauses in the context of a dispute arising from the sale of the back catalogue of Mr Barry Manilow. It serves as a reminder that the jurisdiction of the English Courts is determined at the date of issue of proceedings. The concept that the English court had jurisdiction when the proceedings were issued, but that was ‘floating’ and was lost in favour of California when the option to sue there was exercised, was heretical and contrary to authority. Written by Georgia Whiting, in-house legal counsel, at Ardmore Group Ltd.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal held that section 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (SA 1974) should be construed in light of the Court of Appeal decision in Re Clark—the later decision, In Re a Solicitor, having been decided per incuriam. The provision therefore applies to all costs subject to the solicitor/client costs assessment, including those which were claimed, but which were not part of the solicitor/client retainer, and therefore were disallowed during the assessment. It also held that when making a costs order following a costs assessment, if the costs judge determines that ‘special circumstances’ apply then, under SA 1974, s 70(10), the costs judge exercises their discretion and in doing so may decided not to apply the one-fifth rule in SA 1974, s 70(9). Further, special circumstances do not need to be exceptional. In this case, the fact that the client was a solicitors firm was seen by Lady Justice Arden to constitute a special circumstance.

Tax analysis: In HMRC v Appellants in the Post Prudential Closure Notice Group, the Court of Appeal considered a number of procedural issues relating to the ongoing group litigation on the pre-2009 dividend regime which contravened EU law.

Planning analysis: In DLA Delivery Ltd v Baroness Cumberlege of Newick, the Court of Appeal unanimously held that a planning permission should be quashed due to inconsistent decision making by the Secretary of State and an error in fact leading to the misapplication of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (the Habitats Regulations).

Tax analysis: In The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd, the Court of Appeal decided, by a majority of two to one, that performance fees relating to services supplied while the supplier and the appellant had been members of the same VAT group were subject to VAT. This was because the fees were not invoiced or paid for until after the supplier had left the VAT group.

Planning analysis: In Fiske v Test Valley BC, the court considered whether a local planning authority (LPA) was compelled to treat a scheme’s incompatibility with an earlier permission as a material consideration in the determination of the planning application. The Court of Appeal reviewed the relevant case law in Pilkington and Hillside Parks and concluded that the onus was on the developer to ensure a consent could lawfully be implemented, taking into account any inconsistency with other consents granted in relation to part or all of the same site. The LPA’s duty was to consider the planning merits of the proposal and any incompatibility was not obviously material to that determination. Written by Elizabeth Dunn, partner and Sarah Sutherland, practice development lawyer at Burges Salmon LLP.

Planning analysis: In R (Strack) v SSEFRA, the Court of Appeal had to consider whether in deregistering part of a village green under the Commons Act 2006 (CoA 2006), the interests of those with legal rights of recreation over the green had been conflated by the inspector determining the application with the interests of those local inhabitants who had no such rights. The court was split on this issue, with the Senior President of Tribunals finding that they had not been conflated and the remaining two judges finding that they had been conflated. However, the court was unanimous that the inspector’s error was not material, and in any event, section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981) applied and that the appeal should be dismissed. Written by John Litton KC at Landmark Chambers.

Dispute Resolution analysis: In the context of an injunction and undertaking, the Court of Appeal discharged the negative declaration made by the High Court that the proposed provision of funding by the claimants, Koza Ltd Hamdi Akin Ipek (together ’Koza’), to Ipek Investment Limited (IIL) (the alleged ultimate holding company of the Koza Group) for an ICSID arbitration against Turkey would fall outside Koza’s ‘ordinary and proper course of…business’ (the ICSID funding appeal). In addition, the court held that Koza’s proposed payments to Mr Ipek, sole director of Koza, for legal fees connected to Turkey’s request that Mr Ipek be extradited, was in the ‘ordinary and proper course’ of Koza’s business (the extradition expenses appeal). Written by Oliver Browne, partner, and Eleanor Scogings, associate at Latham & Watkins (London) LLP.