Planning analysis: In Chidswell Action Group v Kirklees Council, the court quashed the planning permission because the local planning authority failed to publish the section 106 agreement before issuing the decision notice, a breach of the DMPO 2015 that deprived the public of a fair opportunity to comment. Following Greenfields, the case underlines that developers and LPAs must ensure draft agreements are published early enough for scrutiny, or risk their permissions being struck down.

Planning analysis: In Wild Justice v Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority, the court quashed planning permission because the authority failed to publish a key ecological report and did not properly consider the presumption against harm to an SSSI. The decision emphasises the importance of transparency in disclosing background papers and of expressly addressing policy protections for designated sites when assessing development proposals.

Planning analysis: In Old Chiswick Protection Society v LB Hounslow, the High Court quashed the London Borough of Hounslow’s (the LPA’s) decision to grant planning permission for a redevelopment in Chiswick. Although the proposed scheme differed from an earlier fallback scheme, the LPA had treated the fallback as a significant material consideration and when comparing the two developments, had disagreed with the findings of the planning inspector granting permission for the fallback. The court held that the committee was materially misled, had not been given the basis of the inspector’s conclusions and had not explained the basis of departing from them.

Planning analysis: In Perrin v North Devon DC, the High Court quashed the grant of planning permission by North Devon DC for an open market dwelling in a small settlement. It held that the planning committee's reasons for departing from officers' repeated recommendation of refusal were inadequate and irrational, because they failed to explain why an open market dwelling should be preferred over the retention of the site for affordable housing-led development under the local plan. The court also held that the decision was tainted by apparent bias arising principally from a senior councillor's participation, viewed against his relationship with the applicants, his involvement in calling in the application, and his role in the committee's consideration.

Property Dispute analysis: In this case, the High Court decided that a building extension that substantially reduced light in an already poorly lit building was a nuisance—and that it would be appropriate to order an injunction for its demolition, with substantial damages in lieu. Written by Guy Fetherstonhaugh QC, Falcon Chambers, counsel for the claimant.

Law360, London: A London court referred a barrister and solicitor to their professional regulators on 6 June 2025 for citing cases that do not exist and warned that freely available generative artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT are not capable of conducting reliable legal research.

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) refused to grant declarations relating to the contractor’s entitlement to payment, following termination of a contract based on a Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) terms. In doing so, it considered interesting questions of contractual interpretation relating to the calculation of the sums due to the contractor after termination, and the effect of an invalid assignment by the employer.

TMT analysis: The High Court has refused permission to amend a defence to include amendments to the ‘Lucas-Box’ meanings pleaded by a defendant as part of its defence of truth in circumstances where the court had already determined the actual meaning of the statements in question. This case concerned a libel action brought against the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail Online by Irina Bokova, former Director-General of UNESCO.

Private Client analysis: The Chancery Division has refused an application for it to pronounce, by way of summary judgment, against the validity of a purported last Will which the applicants maintained was made by the deceased when he lacked testamentary capacity. Alexander Learmonth, barrister, of New Square Chambers, examines the court’s decision.

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) was asked to grant summary judgment on two issues related to the interpretation of a clause in a Project Agreement related to how termination costs were calculated, both of which it subsequently refused to grant. This case provides a useful examination of the principles of summary judgment and in what circumstances it is appropriate for the court to grant summary judgment/strike out.

In Industry-Wide Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme Co-ordinator Ltd v Industry-Wide Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme Trustees Ltd, the High Court held that they would not insert a term into a pension scheme’s rules for pro-rating index calculations without substantive evidence that the omission was a mistake, and a statutory requirement that the rules of a new pension scheme be no less advantageous than the previous scheme does not mean they have to be the same.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court has refused to allow a party to introduce as evidence a page that was missing from the trial bundle. The party requested the court’s decision be reconsidered in light of the missing page even though judgment had already been handed down. The court found there was no reasonable excuse for the party’s failure to put the evidence before the court at the time of trial and the circumstances were not sufficiently unusual so as to justify the proceedings being reopened.