Planning analysis: In Huang Binbin v Vale of White Horse DC, the High Court dismissed a judicial review challenge to a local planning authority’s (LPA) decision not to take enforcement action against mixed commercial uses at a former coal yard. The court held that the LPA had lawfully assessed whether the present mixed use involved a material change from the last lawful coal yard use. The judgment underlines the wide discretion afforded to LPAs under section 172(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) and the difficulty of challenging enforcement decisions where the LPA has made a rational evaluative judgment.

Local Government analysis: The Administrative Court dismissed a challenge to Caerphilly County Borough Council’s decision to restructure its library service by closing ten smaller libraries and concentrating provision in community hubs. The court held that the council had rationally concluded that the restructured service would remain comprehensive, efficient and reasonably accessible under section 7 of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 (PLMA 1964). Its integrated impact assessments also adequately addressed the public sector equality duty (PSED), socio-economic disadvantage, children’s welfare and Welsh-language requirements. The decision illustrates the court’s reluctance to interfere with strategic local authority choices where relevant statutory duties and guidance have been conscientiously addressed and confirms that residual adverse effects do not necessarily invalidate a decision where impacts and appropriate mitigation have been properly evaluated. Produced in partnership with Alan Murdie of Nucleus Legal Advice.

Planning analysis: In Valentine London v SSHCLG, the High Court refused to discharge an order setting aside a planning statutory review claim where the claimant had failed to serve a sealed claim form within the six-week period required by section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) and CPR PD 54D, para 4.11. The judgment confirms that an unsealed claim form cannot constitute valid service.

Tax analysis: In TP ICAP Ltd v NEX Group Ltd, the High Court rejected an application for strike out or summary judgment, in respect of a claim relating to the notification of claims for breach of non-tax warranties under a share purchase agreement (SPA).

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: In a landmark judgment, the High Court upheld claims brought by joint liquidators against former directors of companies in the BHS Group for wrongful trading (section 214 Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986)) and misfeasance (IA 1986, s 212). This included a claim that even if the respondents were not liable for wrongful trading, they failed to consider the interests of creditors under section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) (duty to promote the success of the company) and if they had done so, they would have immediately filed for administration (the ‘trading misfeasance’ claim). Written by Scott Redpath, barrister at Exchange Chambers.

Family analysis: An unusual predicament faced a couple in this case where they sought to be recognised as the parents of two children after an unlawful foreign surrogacy. This decision brought into sharp focus the legal and ethical dilemmas that arise when intended parents embark on illegal surrogacy arrangements in a foreign country. A significant feature in this case was also that the applicants were in their sixties and had not given sufficient consideration to the impact on the children of their age. Ultimately the only orders that were appropriate in the circumstances were adoption orders which were granted by the court. Tahmina Rahman, barrister at 1|GC Family Law Chambers, considers the issues.

A segment of the Main Market which is aimed at high growth, revenue generating businesses incorporated in the UK or an EEA state. The HGS is a UK regulated market but does not form part of the FCA’s Official List. The rules applying to issuers on, or applying to, the High Growth Segment are set out in the High Growth Segment Rulebook which forms part of the London Stock Exchange’s Admission and Disclosure Standards.

A tax charge proposed in 2010 and abandoned (along with anti-forestalling rules) by the incoming Conservative administration on pensions in relation to incomes over £130,000 pa.

The High Pay Centre, in collaboration with academic experts, has published a comprehensive ‘Charter for Fair Pay’ outlining policy reforms aimed at reducing income inequality and enhancing worker rights in the UK. The charter proposes ten key measures across four areas: employment rights, corporate governance, investment and stewardship, and transparency. Notable recommendations include effectively implementing the forthcoming 2024 Employment Rights Bill, creating seats for elected worker directors on company boards, revising company directors legal duties, and expanding pay ratio reporting. The proposals emphasise empowering workers, facilitating dialogue, and enhancing transparency to enable fairer pay outcomes negotiated between employers and employees, rather than through direct government intervention. The charter also suggests establishing a framework for tax and procurement incentives for responsible businesses and creating a task force to promote worker ownership and profit sharing.

What is High Speed 2? High Speed 2 (HS2) is the high-speed rail network that was originally conceived as a wider Y-shaped network linking London with the West Midlands, Manchester and Leeds. That concept has since been substantially altered. Construction is focused on the route between Old Oak Common and Birmingham Curzon Street, with a connection to Euston featuring as part of the intended longer-term configuration. Route HS2 was to be built in two broad phases: • Phase 1 to link London with the West Midlands with a new station at Birmingham Curzon Street (Phase 1) • Phase 2 to link the West Midlands with Manchester. Phase 2 was originally divided into two lines, one to Crewe (Phase 2a) and the other from Crewe to Manchester and from the West Midlands to Leeds (Phase 2b). In November 2021, as part of the Integrated Rail Plan, the government announced that the new line from Crewe to Manchester would be completed, but that a study would be undertaken to look at the best way to take HS2 trains to Leeds. However, in October

High Speed 2 (HS2) is a high-speed rail network for which Phase One (London to West Midlands) remains in development. There has been controversy about the exact route of the line and its effect on nearby landowners. Safeguarding is a process that effectively protects the route of HS2 from any planning applications or developments that could adversely affect its construction or use. It allows certain property owners along or partly within the safeguarding route to serve the government with a statutory blight notice in certain circumstances. Statutory blight is a process that broadly allows affected owners to require acquisition of their property from the government for its unblighted open-market value—ie what it would be worth if HS2 hadn’t been proposed. See Practice Note: Statutory blight. The statutory blight process is explained in detail on the government website. See Practice Note: High Speed 2. Who can serve a statutory blight notice? To qualify to serve a statutory blight notice three criteria must be fulfilled: • there must be a 'qualifying interest' in the property proposed to be purchased by

Law360, London: The soaring cost of car insurance is keeping 2.6 million drivers who are unable to afford the price off of the roads in the UK, statistics published by Citizens Advice on 10 December 2024 show.