Dispute Resolution analysis: Where an application for judicial review relates to a decision made by the Secretary of State or a local planning authority under the planning acts, the claim form must be filed not later than six weeks after the grounds to make the claim first arose. However, this rule is not absolute for a judicial review claim and the court has powers under Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 3.1(2)(a) to extend the time limit. In contrast, the relevant legislation for statutory reviews do not permit the period to be extended at all. Where the time limit has already expired for a planning judicial review, the claimant must apply for an extension of time in the claim form. The application will then be considered by the judge at the same time as deciding whether to grant permission to apply for judicial review. In giving judgment Robert Palmer KC, sitting as Deputy Judge of the High Court, confirmed that the court in determining whether to grant an extension of time will apply the principles set out in R (Thornton Hill Hotel) v Thornton Holdings Ltd. In particular, the judge emphasised the importance of the claimant to proceed with the ‘greatest possible celerity' because a landowner is entitled to rely on the validity of a planning permission granted by a local planning authority exercising its statutory functions in the public interest. Accordingly, where third parties have had a fair opportunity to become aware of, and object to, a proposed development they are expected to move swiftly to challenge its lawfulness before the court. He also noted that when faced with an application to extend time for the bringing of a claim, the court will seek to strike a fair balance between the interests of the developer and the public interest. This includes the extent of hardship or prejudice likely to be suffered by the landowner or developer if relief is granted, compared with the hardship or prejudice to the claimant if relief is refused, and the extent of detriment to good administration if relief is granted, compared with the detriment to good administration resulting from letting a public wrong go unremedied if relief is refused. Written by Brendon Lee, partner at HCR Hewitsons.

Planning analysis: In Wrotham Parish Council v SSHCLG, the High Court upheld an inspector’s grant of outline permission for a Green Belt truck stop, rejecting arguments that (1) the December 2024 ‘grey belt’ definition required a hypothetical, site-wide footnote 7 appraisal (rather than one tied to the proposal), and (2) the inspector misapplied DfT Circular 01/2022 when treating a fuel station as a mandatory element of a motorway-adjacent truck stop.

Local Government analysis: In R (on the application of ZHB) v Cardiff City Council, the High Court rejected a challenge to an age assessment conducted under section 50 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (NBA 2022). The court held that Article 8 ECHR requires reasonable procedural safeguards but does not impose a universal obligation to provide a formally appointed guardian or legal representative during an age assessment. It also held that the duty under section 7(2) of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (SSW(W)A 2014) did not apply to the assessment process itself. The decision reinforces the courts’ preference for a flexible, fact-sensitive approach to procedural fairness in age disputes and discourages the judicialisation of what remains an inquisitorial social work process. Produced in partnership with Siân Davies, barrister at 39 Essex Chambers.

Tax analysis: In BAT Industries, the High Court was required to ascertain when a constructive discovery of the possibility of a challenge against HMRC occurred, focusing on the professional and academic opinion of the now-established incompatibility between the UK and European tax regimes applicable to overseas dividends at the relevant time.

TMT analysis: The High Court has considered a number of claims relating to alleged overcharging for licensing software and services. The case considered issues of who should bear the costs for developing software, as well as the difficulties of judging if a licence fee is reasonable or not. In addition, it illustrates the principle that you may not claim for a loss that you have not suffered. Written by Helen Hart, freelance solicitor and legal writer.

Commercial analysis: The case before HHJ Kramer involved the hiring of a crane and a subsequent dispute about the terms on which it was hired. The defendant argued that a limitation of liability clause under the standard terms of the Construction Plant-Hire Association (‘CPA’) had been incorporated into the contract. HHJ Kramer rejected this submission, finding that the defendant had not done enough to clarify that the term was part of the contract. In case he was wrong about incorporation, HHJ Kramer went on to consider whether the term would nonetheless have been reasonable having regard to the test under section 11(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA 1977). He found that it would, bearing in mind the parties’ commercial positions and respective bargaining power. HHJ Kramer finally addressed the issue of quantum, determining various heads of loss after a careful review of the evidence. Written by Edward Grigg, barrister at 4 New Square Chambers.

Tax analysis: In R (oao Anglia Ruskin Students’ Union) v HMRC, the High Court refused the Claimant, Anglia Ruskin Students’ Union, permission to apply for judicial review of a decision by HMRC that catering supplies made from the Union’s establishment were subject to VAT as the establishment was a bar and therefore unable to benefit from the carve out contained within an extra-statutory concession. The Court found that the premises in question met the definition of being a bar as the word ‘bar’ is ordinarily used.

TMT analysis: The High Court has considered various preliminary issues arising from a Twitter libel case, including the ordinary and natural meaning of the words used and if they were a statement of fact or an opinion. The court also considered the distinction between ‘opinion’ and ‘mere abuse’. Written by Helen Hart, senior practice development lawyer, Lewis Silkin LLP.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The court held that where one defendant to proceedings has made a payment to the claimant, the claimant has the benefit of judgment against another defendant, and the damages awarded are credited with the first payment so that the judgment is for the net figure, interest should only be awarded on the net figure, rather than the total. Practitioners should therefore not rely on claiming substantial interest as damages in cases where a second defendant is likely to make partial payment before or during proceedings. Written by Barry Smith, associate, at Aliant Law.

Commercial analysis: For the first time since taking effect under English Law, the High Court in Wealmoor Ltd v KLM [2025] EWHC 1706 (Comm) considered the test for an ‘event’ causing damage under Article 18(1) of the Montreal Convention 1999 (the ‘Montreal Convention’) in an air cargo claim. The court held that a cargo claimant need not show that the cargo was damaged by anything unusual, unexpected or fortuitous in order to successfully claim against the carrier. Joseph Gourgey, barrister at Quadrant Chambers, considers the implication of the court’s decision.

Commercial analysis: The High Court recently considered the termination of an aircraft lease to purchase contract between Olympic Council of Asia (OCA) and Novans (an aircraft broking and consultancy company). In finding for the claimant, the judgment considers the thorny contractual issues of repudiatory breach, contractual suspension, unjust enrichment and interpretation, all against the backdrop of a contract drafted without the benefit of legal advice. The defendant terminated the contract for non-payment of an invoice on the grounds that the claimant’s non-payment had amounted to a repudiatory breach. OCA subsequently brought its claim saying that this purported termination was in and of itself a breach. It also brought an alternative claim in unjust enrichment seeking restitution in relation to the monies it had paid over under the contract prior to the termination. The defendant counterclaimed that the claimant’s failure to pay the disputed invoice had amounted to a repudiation of the agreement that the defendant had duly accepted. Written by Rachel Ziegler, partner and Lex Townsley, trainee solicitor at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner.

Tax analysis: In Ashley v HMRC, the High Court considered a claim that HMRC had breached the subject access rights of the claimant under UK GDPR after they sought access by way of a subject access request (SAR) to personal data processed by HMRC in connection with an enquiry into a tax return conducted by the Wealthy and Mid-Size Business Compliance (WMBC) department. The High Court ultimately concluded that HMRC would need to reconsider its response to the SAR and anticipated that further data would need to be disclosed.