Featured documents
R (Greyhound Board of Great Britain Ltd) v Welsh Ministers [2026] EWHC 670 (Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling reinforces the constitutional divide between the courts and the legislature. It explains that the scheme and framework of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (GWA 2006) embody that separation of powers, and that any judicial attempt to recognise and enforce a common law obligation on Welsh Ministers to consult prior to introducing legislation in the Senedd would trespass upon that boundary. This is not a departure from established principle; case law has already upheld comparable rules for lawmakers in Scotland and at Westminster. However, this is the first express confirmation of the position for Welsh lawmakers, and the first time this dimension of the GWA 2006 has been analysed in such depth. The court examined earlier
The solution arrived through the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), a quasi‑judicial body handling mass claims, created under UN Security Council Resolution 687. By addressing environmental harm—most notably via its ‘F4’ claim class—the UNCC set a seminal benchmark shaping how international law and contemporary arbitral panels allocate financial responsibility for wartime ecological devastation. With present-day wars in areas such as Eastern Europe and the Middle East bringing dam breaches, strikes on chemical facilities, and the burning of farmland, the UNCC’s legacy endures as an essential reference point for states, global investors, and companies engaged in post‑conflict arbitration. The F4 claims: Quantifying the unquantifiable Prior to the 1990s, mechanisms in international law for war reparations overwhelmingly favoured property loss, foregone earnings, and bodily injury. The natural world was commonly treated as a mute, non-compensable victim of armed hostilities...
Understanding the farming business as a business Many farms still use long-standing structures that arose by habit, not strategy. Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common. While once effective, such setups can cause major issues around succession, tax planning and involving the next generation. A corporate team can take a fresh, business-led view of the farm, asking: Who owns the land and other critical assets? Who manages daily operations? Who carries the risk and who enjoys the return? What is the enduring plan for succession? From this review, the team can confirm whether the current setup is fit for purpose or if an alternative — for example an updated partnership agreement, a company, a limited liability partnership, or a blended model — would better meet the family’s aims. Tax efficiency through joined-up advice Tax sits at the centre of most
Most recent News
In this issue: Environmental impact assessment Best consideration and the Crichel Down rules Lex Talk®Planning: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Latest Q& As Related Documents Environmental impact assessment Supreme Court declares planning permission unlawful for not addressing downstream greenhouse gas emissions from oil production ( R ( Finch) v Surrey CC) In R (on the application of Finch on behalf of the Weald Action Group) v Surrey County Council and others [2024] UKSC 20, the Supreme Court ruled, by a 3:2 majority, that consent for commercial oil production was unlawful because it failed to evaluate the ‘downstream’ greenhouse gas ( GHG) emissions that will inevitably occur when the refined fuel is burnt. The omission to assess downstream, or ‘ Scope 3’, GHG emissions contravened the Environmental Impact Assessment ( EIA)...
Wilkinson, R ( On the Application Of) v London Borough of Enfield [2024] EWHC 1193 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The practical consequences are that principal local authorities holding title to parkland within their districts and in their area on long leases, which are held on statutory trusts for public recreation for the enjoyment of the public, also possess broad powers under LGA 1972, Pt VII to grant leases to companies and may dispose of such land under LGA 1972, released from statutory trusts under PHA 1875. Moreover, local authorities are not constrained in how they apply any receipts from entering into those leases, are under no duty whatsoever to re-invest the proceeds in the remainder of a particular park or in other parks locally, and may instead transfer the monies to their general funds. Given the financial position of many...
In this issue: Air quality and climate change Trees Buildings and building regulations Planning policy Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Related Documents Air quality and climate change Supreme Court rules on downstream environmental impacts ( Finch v Surrey County Council) In R (on the application of Finch on behalf of the Weald Action Group) v Surrey County Council and others [2024] All ER ( D) 71 ( Jun), the Supreme Court allowed an appeal against a Court of Appeal decision concerning the Town and Country Planning ( Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, SI 2017/571 (the 2017 Regulations). The appeal examined the duty to undertake an environmental impact assessment ( EIA) for a proposal to drill for oil under the 2017 Regulations. The core question was whether the planning authority responsible for the EIA, prior to granting planning permission, had to evaluate the climate effects of greenhouse gas...
Abbot v The Information Commissioner [2024] UKFTT 478 ( GRC) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling mirrors the approach in other recent decisions on the operation of the exception to disclosure under EIR 2004, SI 2004/3391, reg 12(5)(b), again stressing the considerable weight that legal professional privilege carries within our justice system. It therefore highlights the obstacles applicants will encounter when attempting to access documents protected by legal professional privilege, and that only ‘special or unusual’ circumstances are likely to be sufficient for the public interest in disclosure to prevail over the interest in preserving legal professional privilege. That said, legal professional privilege was not the Tribunal’s only concern when concluding that EIR 2004, SI 2004/3391, reg 12(5)(b) applied. The Tribunal indicated that the exception would have been engaged even without legal professional privilege, particularly because releasing the material would not have added...
In this issue: Is planning permission required Trees Planning judicial and statutory review Development consent orders Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Latest Q& As Related Documents Is planning permission required High Court dismisses judicial review regarding the mooring of the Bibby Stockholm barge in Dorset ( R ( Parkes) v Dorset Council) In R (on the application of Carralyn Parkes) v Dorset Council [2024] EWHC 1253 ( Admin), the High Court considered a judicial review brought by Carralyn Parkes, a town councillor and the mayor of Portland Town Council. She asked the court to declare that Dorset Council erred in law when concluding it could not take planning enforcement action against the stationing and/or use of the Bibby Stockholm barge, despite the Home Secretary not having applied for planning permission. Parkes argued that: (a) the...
R (on the application of Wellingborough Walks Action Group Ltd) v North Northamptonshire Council [2024] EWHC 1225 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling is of direct importance to local planning authorities ( LPAs) and to developers advancing or assessing proposals that entail removing trees protected by TPOs. It clearly underscores the responsibility of LPAs to secure the protection of safeguarded trees, and stresses that the statutory exceptions to felling under the Town and Country Planning ( Tree Preservation) ( England) Regulations 2012 (the Regulations) must be approached with care and not deployed as a blanket position without examining in detail the particular circumstances on the facts. As to the discrete, expressly framed exception in Regulation 14(a)(vii), which provides that consent is unnecessary where felling is ‘necessary to implement a planning permission’, the court reviewed Barney‑ Smith v...
R (on the application of Carralyn Parkes) v Dorset Council [2024] EWHC 1253 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling confirms how far planning control reaches in England and Wales under the TCPA 1990 where land meets the sea, and addresses whether ‘land’ covers the sea bed beyond the foreshore’s LWM. Although the High Court was told there is considerable opposition to the Bibby Stockholm being moored in the harbour and to its role in accommodating asylum seekers, the court emphasised it was not there to judge the merits of those controversies. Its focus was strictly on the legal issues presented by the claim... What was the background? The Bibby Stockholm is a barge stationed in Portland Harbour, Dorset, used by the Home Office to house asylum seekers. Up to 500 men are expected to live on the vessel while their asylum...
In this issue: Nationally significant infrastructure projects Planning issues in energy projects Environmental information Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Related Documents Nationally significant infrastructure projects Infrastructure ( Wales) Act 2024 published Royal Assent for the Infrastructure ( Wales) Act 2024 ( IWA 2024) was granted on 3 June 2024, with publication following on 12 June 2024. The Act overhauls the legal framework for securing consent to deliver major infrastructure across Wales and within the Welsh marine area. It introduces a new system for ‘ Significant Infrastructure Projects’, authorised through a ‘ Welsh Infrastructure Consent’, which closely mirrors the development consent order regime under the Planning Act 2008 in England. See News Analysis: Infrastructure ( Wales) Act 2024 receives Royal Assent. Planning issues in energy projects Labour Party proposes publicly owned Great British Energy company If victorious at the 2024...
In this issue: Nationally significant infrastructure projects Lex Talk®Planning: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Latest Q& A Related Documents Nationally significant infrastructure projects Infrastructure ( Wales) Act 2024 receives Royal Assent The Infrastructure ( Wales) Act 2024 ( IWA 2024) obtained Royal Assent on 3 June 2024. IWA 2024 reshapes the legal framework that regulates the consenting pathway for the development of significant infrastructure in Wales and the Welsh marine area. It establishes a new regime for ‘ Significant Infrastructure Projects’, under which proposals receive a ‘ Welsh Infrastructure Consent’ ( WIC), which is, in many respects, comparable to the development consent order ( DCO) process set out in the Planning Act 2008 ( PA 2008) in England. The Developments of National Significance ( DNS) regime was introduced in 2015......
What is the background to IWA 2024? The Infrastructure ( Wales) Bill reached the Senedd on 12 June 2023, following a public consultation in April 2018 on proposed changes to the consenting of infrastructure in Wales. The Developments of National Significance ( DNS) regime was introduced in 2015. IWA 2024 replaces DNS with a ‘one-stop shop’ bringing together existing consent regimes for Wales and the territorial sea adjacent to Wales, which closely mirrors the DCO regime under the Planning Act 2008 ( PA 2008) in England. It establishes a new framework for ‘ Significant Infrastructure Projects’ ( SIPs), which are awarded a Welsh Infrastructure Consent ( WIC) by means of an Infrastructure Consent Order ( ICO). The Act’s aims are broadly to: improve consistency, certainty, prospects of success and the quality of applications, while reducing confusion and complexity. The......
In this issue: Nationally significant infrastructure projects Heritage and natural environment Planning and nutrient pollution Planning appeals Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Related Documents Nationally significant infrastructure projects Court of Appeal rules on lawfulness of decision to re-grant development consent for Manston Airport ( Dawes v So S) In R (on the application of Jennifer Dawes) v Secretary of State for Transport and another company [2024] EWCA Civ 560, the Court of Appeal rejected an appeal against Mr Justice Dove’s decision to refuse a judicial review of the Transport Secretary’s grant of development consent for the development and reopening of Manston Airport in Kent as a dedicated air freight facility. The challenge was centred on whether there was a demonstrated need for the scheme, noting that consent had not been issued on climate change...
What are the practical implications of this case? The Court of Appeal’s ruling will attract considerable attention, given the prolonged challenge to the Manston scheme over a number of years. For practitioners and others operating in the development consent order ( DCO) arena, the judgment supplies welcome clarity on the reach and operation of the Infrastructure Planning ( Examination Procedure) Rules 2010, SI 2010/103, rule 19(3)(b). In particular, the court confirmed that, where an earlier decision has been quashed and the Secretary of State is required to redetermine a DCO application, rule 19(3)(b) applies to the subsequent consideration of that application. That conclusion follows from the language of rule 19 and mirrors the rationale that underpins it, namely, to secure procedural fairness. Even so, on the facts here, that principle did not confer a right on interested parties to submit...
In this issue: Key developments Planning policy Biodiversity Planning for nationally significant infrastructure projects Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Related Documents Key developments General Election announced for 4 July 2024 Prime Minister Rishi Sunak sought and obtained the King’s consent to dissolve Parliament, and has set a general election for 4 July 2024. Consequently, Parliament will be prorogued on 24 May 2024 and dissolved on 30 May 2024, in accordance with the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022. This analysis examines the repercussions for bills presently before Parliament and considers the effects on government and public bodies through to the election. See News Analysis: General election announced for 4 July 2024......
Wathen- Fayed v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2024] EWCA Civ 507 What are the practical implications of this case? The bulk of the judgment’s reasoning interprets the CA 1902 in detail, a topic mainly relevant to promoters, operators, and regulators of crematoria. It examines how that statute should be read and applied in practice within contemporary decision-making processes. Viewed that way, the ruling is specialist, and its practical effect is confined to clarifying the correct method for calculating separation distances in rules limiting nearness to homes and public highways. By contrast, grounds 3 and 4 address flood risk, an issue with broader resonance for the development sector. The decision sits within a recent run of authorities on flood risk, notably R (on the application of Substation Action Save East Suffolk Ltd) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero...
Taytime Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and others [2024] EWHC 1053 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? Although this is a permission ruling on an appeal pursuant to TCPA 1990, s 288, the decision serves as a reminder to practitioners that a Planning Inspector must undertake a rigorous assessment where several corporate vehicles front the application and the appeal, remaining alert to questions of agency and insolvency. The court articulated the principles governing when a legitimate expectation can arise that an appeal will be taken forward. The judgment also demonstrates that, on occasion, resolving a planning challenge may necessitate the judge considering permission and the substantive claim to bring additional expertise to bear, for instance where multiple companies are involved and significant procedural issues of agency and insolvency surface, irrespective of the...
In this issue: Planning enforcement Planning policy Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Nationally significant infrastructure projects Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Latest Q& A Related Documents Planning enforcement Court of Appeal clarifies the scope of the Murfitt principle ( SSLUHC v Caldwell) In Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities v Caldwell and another company [2024] EWCA Civ 467, the Court of Appeal examined the extent of the Murfitt principle, under which an enforcement notice tied to a material change of use may require the removal of operational development. The judgment confirms the principle strictly applies only where that operational development is ancillary or incidental to the material change of use, rather than constituting separate development in its own right. See News Analysis by Elizabeth Dunn, Partner, and Sarah...
Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities v Caldwell and another company [2024] EWCA Civ 467 What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment is a notable clarification of the scope of the Murfitt principle. In Murfitt v Secretary of State for the Environment and East Cambridgeshire District Council (1980) 40 P& CR 254, it was determined that, where enforcement is taken against a material change of use, a notice can also require the removal of related operational development, even where those works might otherwise be immune from action. Here, the Court of Appeal emphasised that this does not hold where the operational development is the origin of, or integral to, the change of use and amounts to a distinct development in its own right. In that situation, the four-year limit for enforcement under section 171B(1) of the Town and Country...
In this issue: Town and village greens Planning for nationally significant infrastructure projects Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Related Documents Town and village greens Court of Appeal considers lawfulness of decision to deregister village green ( R ( Strack) v SSEFRA) In R (on the application of Strack (on behalf of The Woodcock Hill Village Green Committee)) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2024] EWCA Civ 420, the Court of Appeal examined whether, in removing a section of a village green from the register under the Commons Act 2006 ( Co A 2006), the inspector who determined the application had impermissibly treated the interests of people with lawful recreational rights over the green as the same as those of nearby inhabitants who lacked any such rights......
R (on the application of Strack (on behalf of The Woodcock Hill Village Green Committee)) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2024] EWCA Civ 420 What are the practical implications of this case? This decision highlights that, in compiling applications and in inspectors assessing proposals to remove land from the register of town and village greens, a clear separation must be drawn between categories of interest: (a) those of individuals who hold rights over, or are in occupation of, the land proposed for deregistration; and (b) those of the neighbourhood. The decision-maker must consider both sets when resolving whether to deregister land as a town or village green, as required by Co A 2006, s 16(6). What was the background? ......
In this issue: Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Nationally significant infrastructure projects Permitted development Planning enforcement Lex Talk®Planning: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Related Documents Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ( DLUHC) has issued a progress note on delivering measures in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 ( LURA 2023) aimed at accelerating housing site build-out. The package features the introduction of completion notices, a power to refuse to determine applications, and requirements for development progress reporting. DLUHC also confirmed it will consult on these tools as well as on proposals for a build-out financial penalty to push developers to deliver homes faster. See: LNB News 29/04/2024 27. Nationally significant infrastructure projects New guidance for nationally significant...
Popular documents
When evaluating a general damages claim, the practitioner ought initially to refer to the Judicial College Guidelines (JCG)...
This Practice Note This Practice Note reviews mechanisms used in settling litigation. A Tomlin order consists of a consent order paired with a schedule. It operates to stay proceedings on terms that have been agreed. The provisions contained in the schedule may remain confidential. This Practice Note describes the scope of confidentiality attaching to the schedule and sets out how it differs from a standard consent order. Sample wording for a Tomlin order is included, alongside links to precedents, as well as guidance on court approval. It also addresses varying, setting aside and enforcing a Tomlin order, including the considerations the court will take into account when handling applications for each. Further guidance is provided on interpreting and applying the relevant provisions of the CPR; however, some courts and divisions impose very specific requirements for both drafting and approval, and for approaching the schedule and confidentiality issues. Accordingly, you must consider the particular rules and court guide provisions in the forum where your claim is proceeding when drawing up the Tomlin order...
Date [ date ] Parties [ name of Landlord ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Landlord) [ name of Tenant ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Tenant) [ [ name of Guarantor ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Guarantor) ] [ [ name of Mortgagee ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Mortgagee) ] Definitions Within this Deed, the terms below shall be interpreted as follows: [ Annual Rent • the annual sum reserved under the Lease; ] [ Insurance Rent • the Tenant’s share of the Landlord’s costs of insuring the Property (as set out in the Lease); ] Lease • the lease of the Property dated [ date ], entered into between (1) [ the Landlord OR [ name ...
I, [ name ], of [ address ], solemnly and sincerely state that: [ Matters to be verified, set out in numbered paragraphs ] I make this solemn statement in good conscience, believing it to be true, and pursuant to the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. DECLARED at [ details ] this [ day ] day of [ month and year ] Before me ................................................................................ [ signature of the person before whom the declaration is made ] A [ commissioner for oaths OR [ solicitor OR [ insert other qualification ] ] authorised to administer oaths ]...
Discover more from LexisNexis
