Interpreting planning permission post Trump and Ashford Interpreting planning permission by reference to application documents and extrinsic material Legal principles The legal principles applicable to construing a planning permission were summarised in Ashford BC ex parte Shepway DC and qualified in Barnett v SoS, as follows: • the general rule is that in construing a planning permission which is clear, unambiguous and valid on its face, regard may only be had to the planning permission itself, including the conditions (if any) on it and the express reasons for those conditions (see Slough BC v SoS and Miller-Mead v MHLG) • this rule excludes reference to the planning application as well as to other extrinsic evidence, unless the planning permission incorporates the application by reference. In that situation the application is treated as having become part of the permission. The reason for normally not having regard to the application is that the public should be able to rely on a document which is plain on its face without having to consider whether

Life Sciences analysis: The request for a preliminary ruling that gave rise to Case C-371/26 was made in the context of proceedings before the Danish Maritime and Commercial Court between the pharmaceutical companies Janssen Biotech and Samsung Bioepis. The dispute concerns the interpretation of the Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) Manufacturing Waiver in the context of the manufacture of a product (ustekinumab) in Denmark for subsequent export to the UK. written by Ignacio Pontijas of Grau & Angulo.

Planning analysis: The primary issue considered by the Court of Appeal in this judgment was whether a local planning authority misunderstood and misapplied the ‘sequential test’ in national and development plan policy for retail development when determining an application for planning permission for a new food store on a site neither in nor on the edge of a town centre. Paragraph 87 of the 2021 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (now para 91 of the updated 2024 version) requires local planning authorities to apply a sequential test with main town centre uses being located in town centres, then edge of centre locations, with out of centre sites being considered if suitable sites are not available. The Court of Appeal decision serves as an important reminder of the difference between policy application which is for the decision maker and policy interpretation which is for the courts. The court sets out its detailed interpretation of para 87 which will be of interest to those involved in retail planning. Written by Sarah Sutherland, practice development lawyer at Burges Salmon LLP.

CPR PD 51Z has been introduced in response to the coronavirus pandemic in relation to possession proceedings, and is effective from 27 March 2020, automatically ceasing to have effect on 30 October 2020. It provides that all proceedings for possession brought under CPR 55 and all proceedings seeking to enforce an order for possession are stayed for a period of 90 days. In effect therefore extant possession claims and enforcement proceedings are automatically stayed. Additionally, by separate provision, from 26 March 2020 until 30 September 2020 (which may be extended) landlords must give three months’ notice to tenants if they intend to seek possession. There is nothing in the Practice Direction that prevents a

This Practice Note provides an overview of the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences in Scotland. The following practice notes may also be of interest: • The investigation and prosecution of financial crime in Scotland—provides an overview of the law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies involved in this area and examines how they work with each other and with counterpart institutions operating elsewhere in the UK • Prosecution process for health and safety cases in Scotland—provides guidance on investigations into health and safety incidents in Scotland and the prosecution process for such offences • Comparison of criminal fraud in Scotland with England and Wales—includes guidance on the investigation and prosecution of criminal fraud The procedure for the investigation and prosecution of crime in Scotland is currently regulated by the common law and statute. The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (CP(S)A 1995) sets out the rules that govern how criminal cases proceed in the courts in Scotland. CP(S)A 1995 provides for two distinct types of criminal procedure

Addressing economic and financial crime is a key priority for governments, law enforcement agencies and prosecutors across the United Kingdom. In Scotland, the policing response to economic and financial crime is a devolved matter. Different agencies operate in Scotland from those operating elsewhere in the United Kingdom. In addition, the Scottish legal system operates independently from those elsewhere in the United Kingdom with certain distinct offences in the area of economic and financial crime. This note summarises the law enforcement and prosecutorial institutions working in this area and examines how they work with each other and with counterpart institutions operating elsewhere in the United Kingdom. For general guidance on how alleged crimes are investigated and reported for prosecution in Scotland, see Practice Note: The investigation and prosecution of criminal offences in Scotland. For guidance on how criminal fraud is investigated and prosecuted in Scotland, see Practice Note: Comparison of criminal fraud in Scotland with England and Wales. For guidance on specific aspects

The main purpose of the Investment Manager Exemption (IME) is to enable a non-UK resident to appoint a UK-based investment manager to carry out qualifying investment transactions without the manager’s activities, by themselves, exposing the non-resident to UK tax on the resulting trading profits. In the case of a non-resident company, the IME forms part of the rules determining whether the company trades in the UK through a permanent establishment. For non-resident individuals and trustees, qualifying trading income is treated as disregarded income for the purposes of the limitation on the income tax liability of non-residents. The IME was originally enacted in section 127 of the Finance Act 1995 and is now replicated in several parts of the tax legislation. Its most important applications are: • the treatment of qualifying trading income of non-resident individuals and trustees under ITA 2007, including sections 814 and 817–828; • the exclusion or limitation of the liability of investment managers and other persons as UK representatives under ITA 2007, Part 14, Chapter 2 and CTA 2010, Part 22,

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The court held that, in circumstances where the substantive basis for an application had fallen away (subsequent events meant the application was no longer necessary), the correct approach was to make no order as to costs. The court was not in a position to determine who was the successful party and therefore lacked any ‘compass’ to guide the exercise of its discretion on costs. There was no longer any point in the application, and it was inappropriate for further legal and judicial resources to be spent resolving the satellite dispute over which party would have been successful, for the sole purpose of determining costs. Written by Bláthnaid Breslin, barrister at Littleton Chambers (counsel for the second respondent).

This Practice Notice looks at how multiple causes of action can be consolidated and dealt with by means of a single arbitration, focusing on construction disputes. See also Practice Note: Multi-party and multi-contract arbitration—an introduction. Multi-party/multi-contract disputes Construction disputes often involve more than two parties. It is common for an employer to enter into a construction contract with a main contractor, who then sub-contracts different parts of the works to a number of sub-contractors. The result is that multiple, interconnected construction contracts are in place between various different parties on one project. In the event of a dispute, there may be many potential causes of action under the various contracts. A single dispute may involve the employer, the contractor and a number of the sub-contractors, suppliers and consultants. If all the contracts are subject to the jurisdiction of the court, this is easily managed by the Civil Procedure Rules and the court will ensure all the related claims are joined ('consolidated') into the same proceedings. However, where some or all of the contracts contain

Principal documents The principal documents required for a corporate joint venture are: • the articles of association (articles) of the joint venture company (JVC), and • the joint venture agreement (JVA) (sometimes called a ‘shareholders’ agreement’—a shareholders' agreement takes effect in English common law as a commercial contract and is not subject to any special legal rules. The term 'shareholders' agreement' can be used to refer to an informal (even implied) agreement between only some of the shareholders in a company as well as to a highly complex agreement governing, for example, the creation of a JVC). For a discussion about what is typically covered in the JVA and also in the articles of the JVC, see Practice Note: Documenting the corporate joint venture. Purpose of the joint venture agreement A JVA is a contract that is entered into between typically all of the shareholders of a JVC (and often the JVC itself) which seeks to set out the terms on which the affairs of the JVC will be managed and the rights, remedies and obligations

In all financial remedy cases, the court will focus upon the checklist factors in section 25(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Where the only asset is the former family home which also operates as the bed and breakfast (B&B) business, the primary focus within the checklist will be likely to be on the parties’ housing needs. The scenario of a former matrimonial home being used for a B&B business is not dissimilar from the problems presented by farming cases where very often all available capital is tied up in the farming business with no liquid assets available for distribution. However, one fundamental difference is that in a farming case the business

This Practice Note provides an explanation of the powers of the Scottish criminal courts to sentence offenders following conviction. For an introduction to the structure and workings of the Scottish criminal justice process, see Practice Note: The investigation and prosecution of criminal offences in Scotland. For guidance on the approach the Scottish courts take to sentencing corporate criminal/regulatory offences, see Practice Note: Sentencing corporate criminal offences in Scotland. High Court The most serious corporate cases are prosecuted in the High Court of Justiciary (High Court). Cases are tried by a judge and jury under solemn procedure. See Practice Notes: Solemn procedure in Scottish criminal proceedings and Trials under the Scottish solemn procedure. As a trial court, its jurisdiction extends over the whole of Scotland (and sometimes beyond) in respect of all crimes unless excluded by statute. It has exclusive jurisdiction to try the most serious crimes such as treason, murder and rape. In practice, the High Court deals with other serious crimes such as very serious assaults,