Planning analysis: In Wildfish v Buckinghamshire Council, the Court of Appeal dismissed a challenge to the approval of reserved matters for a housing development. It confirmed that drainage scheme requirements in planning conditions were not reserved matters and were not subject to reserved matters submission deadlines and that a variation to the description of the reserved matters application was not a substantive amendment.

Planning analysis: In Manston v SoS, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against the decision of Mr Justice Dove to refuse a judicial review of the decision of the Secretary of State for Transport to grant development consent for the development and reopening of Manston Airport in Kent as a dedicated air freight facility. The grounds of challenge focussed on the need for the development, as permission had not been granted on climate change grounds. The judgment draws out interesting conclusions on the reliance on expert reports, the application of Rule 19, procedural unfairness relating to material submitted outside the consultation process and the weight to be attributed to material considerations. Written by Elizabeth Dunn, partner, and Sarah Sutherland, practice development lawyer at Burges Salmon.

Local Government analysis: In a key ruling, the Court of Appeal emphasised the limited role of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) in individual school exclusion decisions, stating that undue focus on PSED could complicate and over-legalise the process. The court dismissed the appeal, reinforcing the headteacher's discretion to consider student behaviour as both ‘serious’ and ‘persistent’ without needing to choose between the two. This decision underscores the importance of a balanced approach in exclusion decisions and the autonomy of schools, making it a significant case for educational law practitioners. The ruling also affirmed the role of the Governing Disciplinary Committee (GDC) to independently review and decide on exclusions, potentially altering their decisions based on new evidence or errors in initial judgment. This case serves as a crucial reference for understanding the nuanced interplay between headteacher decisions, GDC reviews, and PSED considerations in school exclusions. Written by Philip Wood, principal associate at Browne Jacobson LLP.

Private Client analysis: The Court of Appeal has handed down a landmark judgment concerning a standard trustee remuneration clause in a Will. The clause, or ones very like it, are in use across thousands of Wills and trust instruments worldwide. The decision marks an important change from the previous understanding of the law concerning executors or trustees who are not professionals in the business of trust administration. Such persons may only be remunerated for work done in the administration where that work is done within the course of their profession or business; they are not entitled to remuneration for any other time spent, even if it is of value to the trust or estate. Written by Aidan Briggs, barrister and mediator at New Square Chambers.

Employment analysis: An employment tribunal was entitled to find that state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978 (SIA 1978) did not apply to employment tribunal claims brought by an employee who worked in the academic and cultural affairs departments of the Saudi Arabian Embassy, according to the Court of Appeal. In its judgment, the court expressed doubt over two previous decisions on state immunity: the EAT decision in Ogbonna on the personal injury exception in SIA 1978, s 5; and the Court of Appeal decision in Aziz on the issue of waiver of state immunity.

Pensions analysis: The Court of Appeal allowed HMRC’s appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT) that a ‘facilitation payment’ made as part of a package of incentives offered by the respondent to its employees who were members of its defined benefit pension scheme in recognition of proposed changes to the scheme was not ‘from an employment’, and accordingly chargeable to income tax under section 9(2) of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA 2003), and liable to national insurance contributions (NICs) under section 3(1) Social Security and Benefits Act 1992 (SSBA 1992). Written by Scott Redpath, barrister at Temple Tax Chambers.

Tax analysis: In ScottishPower (SPCL) Ltd and others v HMRC (17 January 2025), the Court of Appeal decided that payments made by the taxpayers to consumers and consumer organisations pursuant to agreements made in settlement of regulatory investigations were deductible in calculating the taxpayers’ trading profits for corporation tax purposes.

Private Client analysis: The Court of Appeal has ruled on the facts that there were considerable difficulties in the way a sole trader attempted to create a trust of a share of his business. Mark Fitch, partner at Hatch Brenner solicitors, who acted for the successful appellant, comments on what lessons can be learned from this case and considers the wider implications for these types of cases.

Corporate Crime analysis: The joined appeals in Dalston Projects Ltd and others v Secretary of State for Transport and Shvidler v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs presented the first opportunity for the Court of Appeal to provide guidance on the correct approach to challenges to sanctions designations brought under section 38 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (SAMLA 2018). The judgment also considers the principles to be applied by the Court of Appeal in reviewing decisions of the High Court in proportionality cases. Written by Kerri McGuigan, senior associate and Liam Lane, associate at Peters & Peters Solicitors LLP.

Life Sciences analysis: The Court of Appeal has set a new legal precedent for UK businesses importing and selling cannabidiol (CBD) or low—Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) hemp flower by clarifying that it does not consider hemp flower with a THC content below 0.2% to be a narcotic in its decision in R v Margiotta, but its application is limited to pre-Brexit activities unless and until post-Brexit regulatory clarification and reform is provided. Shannett Thompson, partner, and Christina Orthodoxou, associate, at Kingsley Napley.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: In this important judgment in the fast-developing restructuring plan jurisdiction under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), the Court of Appeal set aside a decision of the High Court from Mr Justice Marcus Smith) to sanction two linked restructuring plans on the ground that, because of excessive projected returns to the providers of new money to the restructured group, the benefits preserved or generated by the plans were not fairly shared between plan creditors. The Court dismissed a second ground of appeal pursued by the opposing plan creditors, under which it was argued that, on the facts, the ‘no worse off’ test under CA 2006, s 901G(3) (‘Condition A’) was not satisfied because, commercially, as a consequence of the Plan Companies going into liquidation, the opposing creditors would benefit from the loss of a competitor. Written by Yasseen Gailani, partner, Quin Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP.

TMT analysis: The Court of Appeal substituted defamatory meanings but strived to uphold the trial judge’s discretionary decision on the ‘Chase’ levels. The modifications made by the Court of Appeal clarified the precise defamatory imputations that will frame the rest of the litigation. Lord Justice Warby gave cautionary warnings in respect of trials of preliminary issues (where CPR PD 53B, para 6.1 applies) in defamation cases, including when they are suitable and how practitioners can help guide the judge through the issues if they are. He gave guidance about how the well-established legal principles are to be applied when determining meaning. Written by Sophie Mitchell, barrister specialising in Media Law.