Planning analysis: This case involved a claim brought by Drayton Manor Farms Ltd seeking clarification as to whether the solar farm for which it had already been granted planning permission in 2023 (2023 Planning Permission) from the Local Planning Authority (Stratford-Upon-Avon District Council) (LPA) also required development consent under section 31 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008). The court was asked to consider the practical and legal significance of a note attached to the 2023 Planning Permission, in which the LPA stated that the proposed project was an extension of an existing (adjacent) solar farm and the applicant would be ‘proceeding at its own risk it did not apply for a DCO’ (potentially committing a criminal offence for carrying out a development for which development consent was required). In reaching his conclusion that the two solar farms were indeed independent, the judge confirmed that the key factor in any determination should relate to the projects' power generation function, rather than their special proximity. Written by Thomas Horner, associate at Dentons UK and Middle East LLP.

The High Court has discharged a super-injunction that previously prohibited disclosure of a significant data breach involving Afghan relocation applicants. This breach, which occurred in early 2022, entailed the unauthorised release of personal information and contact details for over 33,000 individuals who had applied for relocation to the UK following the Taliban takeover in 2021.

Public Law analysis: The High Court discharged a super-injunction in the case of Ministry of Defence v Global Media and Entertainment Ltd, marking a significant moment in the intersection of privacy, national security, and open justice. This judgment (the Judgment) rebalances the competing interests of state secrecy and the public’s right to know, with the Judgment emphasising the need for democratic accountability in the handling of sensitive government errors. The Judgment (which was made public together with the earlier judgments in the case) serves as a crucial reminder of the limits of secrecy in the face of evolving evidence and the fundamental importance of freedom of expression. Written by Dan Tench, partner, and Rosie Coles, associate, at CMS.

Local Government analysis: The High Court dismissed the local authority’s application to deprive a fifteen-year-old girl of her liberty for twelve months. The court affirmed the ‘consents [the girl’s] father provided in this case to the deprivation of her liberty are all considered to be in her best interests’ and fell ‘within the zone of his parental responsibility’. The authority’s application was therefore dismissed as the girl was ‘not being deprived of her liberty and the authorisations the local authority seeks [were] not necessary’. This case provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal principles and relevant case law concerning the meaning of confinement, the zone of parental responsibility and the requirement to consider the specific facts and characteristics of the individual child when determining whether a parent has acted in a child’s best interests. Written by Nicola Wheater, associate at HCR Law.

The High Court has dismissed the legal challenge brought by Friends of the Earth (FoE) and co-claimants, Doug Paulley and Kevin Jordan, in Friends of the Earth v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2024] EWHC 2707 (Admin), ruling that the government’s National Adaptation Programme 3  (NAP3) is lawful. The court dismissed all four grounds of the challenge, which concerned the interpretation of ‘objectives’, the risk of delivery, public sector equality duty, and human rights. The claimants have stated that they are considering appealing the judgment, calling on the government to introduce a comprehensive NAP, aligned with the Climate Change Committee’s advice.

Corporate Crime analysis: the High Court dismissed a judicial review brought by the Mid and West Wales Fire & Rescue Service (‘Claimant’) against a decision of a Coroner to allow the conclusions of the Marine Accident Investigation Branch (‘MAIB’) report to stand as conclusive evidence as to the cause of the accident which led to the deceased’s death. The High Court, in dismissing the judicial review, found that the Coroner correctly applied the principles as set out in R (Secretary of State) v HM Senior Coroner for Norfolk and affirmed in HM Senior Coroner for West Sussex v Chief Constable of Sussex Police. Mr Justice Eyre confirmed that the principles elucidated in Norfolk and applied in West Sussex were part of the ratio decidendi of those decisions and not obiter. Written by Daniel Walker, barrister at Temple Garden Chambers.

Planning analysis: In (Lullington Solar Park Ltd v SLUHC), the High Court rejected a challenge of an inspector’s decision to dismiss an appeal against a local planning authority’s decision to refuse planning permission for a solar development. The grounds were concerned with the inspector’s approach to considering a site selection search submitted to demonstrate the availability of best and most versatile (‘BMV’) agricultural land in locations in the district within a defined search area. The judge rejected both grounds and dismissed the challenge. Written by Howard Leithead, barrister, at No5 Barristers’ Chambers.

Local Government analysis: The High Court dismissed the judicial review claim brought by a doctors’ advocacy body against the General Medical Council’s (‘GMC’) ongoing failure to regulate associates in accordance with their over-arching duty of patient safety. Specifically, the GMC’s failure to prescribe national limits on physician associates’ and anaesthesia associates’ (together ‘Associates’) practice on the grounds of irrationality and a failure to comply with the Tameside duty of inquiry. The court confirmed the GMC’s decision was not irrational nor had the GMC failed to comply with their Tameside obligations given they had ‘embarked on an extensive research program to inform the development of its professional standards and guidance to be applied to associates...’ This case provides a comprehensive narrative of the concerns regarding the GMC’s regulation of Associates, the work undertaken by the GMC to bring the regulation of Associates into fruition, as well as a reminder of the case law concerning process and outcome irrationality. Written by Nicola Wheater, associate at HCR Law.

Tax analysis: In Nigel Barklem v HMRC, Mr Barklem (the Claimant) made various claims for declaratory relief. The substance of the claims was a declaration that the film partnership, of which he was a partner, the Film 2K Partnership (Film 2K), never was a partnership, and that, therefore, HMRC’s notices, issued under section 28B(4) of the Taxes Management Act 1970 (TMA 1970), disallowing his claim for sideways relief, were invalid. The High Court struck out the claims for declaratory relief as an abuse of process. Had it not struck out the claims it would have found in favour of HMRC on the substantive points.

TMT analysis: This claim concerned an action for slander in which the claimant alleged that the defendant had falsely accused him of sexual assault and of being under investigation for interfering with young girls, which in turn had led him to lose out on a job offer. Written by Yinka McKay Wood, associate, and Moritz Schirmeister, associate at Atkins Thomson Solicitors.

Tax analysis: In R (on the application of Peter Kadas), the High Court granted the claimant permission to pursue a judicial review against HMRC’s decision to share his financial information with the Spanish tax authority (the AEAT) but rejected the claim on its merits.

Local Government analysis: The High Court dismissed a claim for judicial review brought by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) in connection with NHS North West London Integrated Care Board’s (ICB) decision not to contribute towards the cost of a child’s placement in a specialist children’s home. In making the decision, the High Court dismissed the seven grounds brought by RBKC and opined that healthcare was not being provided by the ICB and their refusal to financially contribute towards the placement was not irrational nor unreasonable. This case provides a comprehensive overview of local authorities’ and integrated care boards’ statutory duties owed to children under the Children Act 1989 and to people under the National Health Service Act 2006 (NHSA 2006) and the relevant accompanying case law. In addition, this case also acts as a useful reminder of the Wednesbury unreasonableness test. Written by Nicola Wheater, associate at HCR Law.