Information Law analysis: This article considers the decision of Mrs Justice Collins Rice in LCG and others v OVD and others. The first and second claimants succeeded in establishing a claim for misuse of private information against persons unknown, but the judge was unable to attribute any of the alleged tortious conduct to the known defendants. The judgment is perhaps most notable for its lengthy treatment of the convoluted procedural history and factual background to the case, but it also provides a useful, if uncontroversial, reminder that the private quality of information is not lost simply because the information is, or has been, publicly available. Written by Percy Preston, paralegal at Brett Wilson LLP.

Planning analysis: In Giles v SSHCLG, the High Court refused a section 288 claim and permission for a section 289 appeal arising from the dismissal of planning and enforcement appeals concerning a Gypsy/Traveller site in the green belt. The court held that any challenge to the written representations procedure should have been brought promptly by judicial review when that procedural decision was made. In any event, the procedure was lawful and fair.

Planning analysis: In R(WWAG) v North Northamptonshire Council, the court had to consider whether an exception to the general rule that consent is required from a local planning authority (LPA) to fell a tree protected by a tree preservation order (TPO), where the felling is ‘necessary to implement a planning permission’, applied. The High Court held that on the interpretation of the specific planning permission, the works carried out to fell the tree were not authorised by the permission and therefore did not fall within the exception. Written by Sarah Sutherland, practice development lawyer at Burges Salmon LLP.

Tax analysis: In Davies v Novatrust Limited [2023] EWHC 1196 (Ch) (25 May 2023), the High Court found in favour of the defendant, holding that the gross-up provisions in question operated by reference to the highest rate of income tax which was actually payable by the claimant and that there was an implied term in the agreements that the claimant would provide information relating to their income to enable the defendant to calculate the appropriate gross-up.

Tax analysis: In R (on the application of Rokos) v HMRC, the High Court (Mrs Justice Foster) dismissed the taxpayer’s claim for judicial review of HMRC’s decision to amend his tax returns to disallow relief for losses sustained by film finance partnerships in which he had participated.

Planning analysis: The High Court held that the Appeals Planning Officer (APO) scheme, operated by the Planning Inspectorate, breached the requirements of procedural fairness when an inspector, appointed by the Secretary of State to determine an advertising consent appeal delegated his decision-making powers, including the carrying out of a site visit, to a ‘representative’, who had no professional qualifications, but who had been tasked with reaching planning judgments and writing an extensive draft decision which the inspector had substantial regard to. The decision is a landmark challenge given the findings of the court and the subsequent implications upon previous and future appellants who had or were due to have their appeals dealt with in a similar fashion—as well as having substantial consequences for the Planning Inspectorate in reconsidering how previous and future appeals should be dealt with. Written by Anne Williams and Angelica Rokad, barristers at 6 Pump Court, London.

Tax analysis: In Fulmar Contracting Ltd (in liquidation) v Williams, the High Court held that workers were not liable for underpaid payroll taxes of an insolvent umbrella company, because there was no evidence of a contract of employment and money paid to them was not a transaction at an undervalue.

Law360, London: The saying ‘rules are mostly made to be broken’ just does not ring true when it comes to the Civil Procedure Rules, or CPR, of England and Wales.

Pensions analysis: The High Court has ruled that members were not entitled to the benefit of a scheme-specific underpin to revaluation in deferment. The rules linked the rate of revaluation to the rule about pension increases in retirement but the meaning of that link was unclear. Both interpretations contended for were workable. Observing that ‘as is often the case in disputes of this sort, the language of the offending rule is obscure and poorly expressed’, the judge held that members were only entitled to statutory revaluation. Anna Rogers, senior partner at Arc Pension Law, analyses this development.

Planning analysis: Section 85(A1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRWA 2000) came into effect on 26 December 2023 following amendments to that Act made by section 245 of the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023 (LURA 2023). The provision requires relevant authorities to ‘seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty’ of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (‘AONB’) when exercising functions affecting such land. This case concerned a challenge to the November 2024 decision of the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (‘the Secretary of State’) to grant planning permission for the construction of 165 dwellings and associated works in the High Weald AONB. The grounds of challenge were that the Secretary of State had breached the CRWA 2000, s 85(A1) duty (Ground 1) or alternatively, had given inadequate reasons for concluding that the duty had been complied with (Ground 2). The main issue for the High Court was whether the words ‘seek to further’ contained in the amended section 85(A1) duty had altered the substance of the duty so as to require a decision-maker to refuse planning permission for development if it is found that the proposal would cause harm to an AONB by failing to conserve or enhance its natural beauty. In dismissing the claim and upholding the Secretary of State’s decision, the judge provided guidance on the requirements of the CRWA 2000, s 85(A1) duty in the context of planning decisions affecting AONBs. Written by Max Millington, barrister at Cornerstone Barristers.

The Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) has announced that the High Court has granted permission for a judicial review of the government’s new minimum service levels legislation. The PCS, who represent approximately 185,000 civil service workers, argue that the legislation is in breach of Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The hearing is set to take place later in 2024.

Local government analysis: The High Court granted an application for judicial review brought on behalf of Z, a putative 17-year old unaccompanied asylum seeking child from Afghanistan, on the grounds that: 1) there had been an unlawful and irrational failure, refusal or undue delay to undertake a reassessment of C’s age given new evidence; and 2) the London Borough of Hounslow’s (‘Council’) failure to provide Z with age-appropriate accommodation and mental health support was unlawful. In agreement with the application, the court also granted an anonymity order, reliance on witness statements, appointment of a named litigation friend, expeditious proceedings and an interim order granting Z putative child status until the conclusion of the proceedings, thus, securing Z accommodation, care and support pursuant to section 20 of the Children Act 1989. This case provides specific guidance to practitioners whose clients are experiencing similar circumstances and a helpful reminder of the law concerning the test for granting permission and interim injunctions. Written by Nicola Wheater, associate at HCR Law.