Statutory requirement to have regard to the development plan in planning application decisions When considering an application for planning permission or permission in principle, section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) states that the decision-maker must have regard to: • the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application • a post-examination draft neighbourhood development plan, so far as material to the application • from a date to be appointed, in England, any national development management policies, so far as material to the application • any considerations relating to the use of the Welsh language, so far as material to the application • any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application • any other material considerations If a decision-maker fails to take account of relevant considerations or has taken into account irrelevant considerations, the decision is at risk of being quashed. As was clarified by Lord Hoffmann in Tesco Stores v Secretary of State for the Environment, the question of

Legislation and guidance The statutory requirements relating to the determination of planning applications are set out in: • the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (DMPO 2015), SI 2015/595 in England, and • the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Wales) Order 2012 (DMPO 2012), SI 2012/801 in Wales In England, guidance on determining planning applications is set out in Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the government’s policies for plan-making and for making decisions on development proposals in England. The August 2026 NPPF replaces the version published in December 2024. The NPPF is a material consideration of critical importance in both plan-making and decision-making. Its national decision-making policies should be read alongside the policies in the development plan and must be taken into account in decision-making from 17 August 2026. The NPPF distinguishes between plan-making policies and national decision-making policies. The national decision-making policies should be read as a whole, including relevant footnotes and annexes. The plan-making policies should not be used when making decisions

• The legal advisor will read the charge to the defendant. • The legal advisor will explain that the defendant may indicate whether they would plead guilty or not guilty if the case proceeded to trial. • The legal advisor will explain that if the defendant indicated a guilty plea, they will be treated as being convicted and may be committed to the Crown Court for sentence if the court regards its powers of punishment to be inadequate. • If the defendant indicates a guilty plea, the court will proceed to consider whether they can be sentenced in the magistrates’ court or whether they

This Practice Note provides guidance for a party involved in a commercial transaction between businesses to help them determine whether they are an independent controller, joint controller or processor under the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (UK GDPR). For higher-level introductions to data protection law, see Practice Notes: Data protection law—new starter guide and The UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR)—Summary of key legislation. The UK data protection law collection collates further general guidance on data protection law and is a recommended starting point for data protection research. In brief Data protection law in the UK is intended to ensure information about living individuals (within the definition of ‘personal data’) is used fairly and responsibly. To help ensure that, UK data protection laws impose a large number of obligations on those ‘processing’ personal data (and on those who control such processing) and grant rights to those whose personal data is processed (the ‘data subjects’). In summary,

Family analysis: In a detailed legal analysis, Lord Justice Moylan set out why the High Court had erred in determining that a contested ‘internal’ jurisdictional dispute between England and Scotland regarding child welfare proceedings must be resolved under the 1996 Hague Convention on Parental Responsibility and Protection of Children (the 1996 Hague Convention). The judgment is forthright in setting out that the Family Law Act 1986 (FLA 1986) applies to determining jurisdiction in intra-UK private children cases, instead of the 1996 Hague Convention, as apparent from both the dicta in Re W-B (Family Proceedings: Appropriate Jurisdiction within UK), and certain key explanatory documents relating to the 1996 Hague Convention itself. Also fundamental to the determination of jurisdiction between England and Scotland in child welfare proceedings is the existence of any ‘continuing’ matrimonial proceedings, which will typically operate to exclude, essentially automatically, the other intra-UK country from exercising such child welfare jurisdiction. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, analyses the issues.

Confiscation proceedings require the court to determine the benefit figure, recoverable amount and available amount of a defendant who has benefited from their offending. The benefit is the value of what the defendant obtained by their offending. The recoverable amount is an amount equal to the defendant’s benefit. The starting point is that the court will order the defendant to pay a sum equal to the benefit unless they can prove that their available amount is worth less than the benefit. If so, the recoverable amount will be equal to the available amount. The available amount is the figure that the court will order the defendant to pay towards satisfaction of the recoverable amount or else face the sentence of imprisonment in default. For example, a defendant might have stolen £1,000 that they then entirely gambled away. The £1,000 is their benefit. After gambling it away, however, the only remaining asset of the defendant is a £10 note. Their benefit would remain £1,000 but their available amount would only be

Property Disputes analysis: The case involved a written boundary demarcation agreement entered into by two neighbours shortly before they each sold their respective properties. The subsequent owners found themselves in a dispute about the same boundary. The respondents, the Alders, sought to rely on the agreement, but the appellant, Mr White, argued that as a successor in title he was not bound by it—either at all or because he had no knowledge of it. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. Lady Justice Asplin, with whom Lord Justice Zacaroli and Sir Launcelot Henderson agreed, held that a boundary agreement binds successors in title because of its very nature. It delineates a boundary and therefore defines the property that can be transferred or conveyed. Since no one can transfer or convey more land than they own, a boundary agreement binds successors in title whether or not they know about it. Written by Tanita Cross, barrister at Exchange Chambers.

This Flowchart provides an overview of the questions to be asked when determining the territorial application or scope of statutory employment rights, ie what statutory rights, if any, an employee who works abroad and/or has a foreign employer has. For information on territorial application or scope generally, see Practice Note: The territorial scope of statutory employment rights. For Flowcharts on determining applicable law and jurisdiction, see: Determining applicable law in employment disputes—flowchart and Determining jurisdiction in employment disputes (1 January 2021 onwards)—flowchart. For a Checklist that provides an overview of the questions

If the EAT detects a legal error by an employment tribunal it must remit the case back to the tribunal unless (a) it concludes that the error cannot have affected the result, for in that case the error will have been immaterial and the result as lawful as if it had not been made, or (b) without the error the result would have been different, but the EAT is able to conclude what it must have been. In neither case is the EAT to make any factual assessment for itself, nor make any judgment of its own as to the merits of the case; the result must flow from findings made by the employment tribunal, supplemented (if at all) only by undisputed or indisputable facts. Otherwise, there must be a remittal. Underhill LJ added that the detrimental consequences of this ruling with regard to the extra expense and delay that would be occasioned by remittal are mitigated to some extent by the fact that (a) in many cases the EAT will be in a position to conclude that, had the error of law not been made, only one possible outcome would have been reasonably possible, and (b) even where more than one outcome would have been possible, there was no reason why the EAT cannot decide the issue without remission if the parties consent to the EAT making a particular order. Court of Appeal: Jafri v Lincoln College.

In considering the question of whether a Sikh Granthi (priest) at a Gurdwara (temple) was a ‘worker’ for the purposes of the national minimum wage provisions, in circumstances where he was provided with free accommodation at the Gurdwara, and survived on food and irregular payments provided by members of the congregation, the first question was whether there had been any intention to create legal relations between the Granthi and the management committee of the Gurdwara, in order to determine whether there was any contract at all and, if it was found that a contract existed, the tribunal should then go on to determine the usual questions regarding 'mutuality' and 'personal performance of services' in order to determine whether that contract had the qualities required of a 'worker' contract, according to the EAT in Singh v Members of the Management Committee of the Bristol Sikh Temple.

This Checklist sets out different ways in which a party may submit to the English court’s jurisdiction. Defendants who do not want to submit to its jurisdiction will need to make an application to challenge the English court’s jurisdiction. For guidance on making such an application, see Challenging court jurisdiction—overview. It should be noted that very tight time periods apply within which such

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note set out the permission during the transitional period following the UK leaving the EU. That transitional period has now ended and many of the considerations set out in this Practice Note are now redundant. For guidance on situations in which a claim form can be served on a defendant who is outside the jurisdiction, see Practice Note: Cross-border service—is permission required to serve a defendant who is outside England and Wales? Definitions/abbreviations This Practice Note uses a number of definitions and abbreviations as follows: • CPR 6—Part 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules on Service of documents • implementation period—is defined in EU(WA)A 2020, s 1 as the ‘transition or implementation period provided for by Part 4 of the withdrawal agreement and beginning with exit day and ending on IP completion day’. ‘Implementation period’ is the UK’s preferred term. The EU’s preferred term for this period is the ‘transition period’.