Practical Law

Make sure that you have not missed a key development in your area of the law by reading our In brief review of the latest Practical Law Public Sector email.

Civil litigation:

• The High Court has dismissed an appeal against an order allowing the defendant to withdraw pre-action admissions and setting aside a default judgment in a clinical negligence case (Moore v Worcestershire NHS Trust).
• The Supreme Court has launched an “on demand” video service, enabling the public to view past hearings from the preceding year.

Construction:

• The TCC has refused to grant a defendant relief from sanctions in a claim for payment arising out of the building works that were necessary following a fire (Cockell (t/a Cockell Building Services) v Holton (No 2)).
• An amendment sheet addressing the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 has been published for the PPC2000 and TPC2005 standard form contracts.

Employment and pensions:

• The ECJ has given its judgment on the meaning of “establishment” for the purposes of determining when collective redundancy requirements apply (USDAW and another v WW Realisation 1 Ltd (in liquidation), Ethel Austin Ltd and another).
• The Supreme Court has held that the dismissal of fixed-term employees on expiry of their contracts falls within the definition of redundancy for collective redundancy consultation purposes (University College Union v University of Stirling).
• The EAT has set aside a tribunal’s decision to permit amendments to a complex unfair redundancy dismissal claim, involving multiple claimants, for being sufficiently flawed (Remploy Ltd v Abbott and others).

Environment:

• The Supreme Court has delivered its final judgment in the long-running judicial review proceedings concerning the UK government’s failure to comply with its obligations under the Air Quality Directive 2008 to meet limit values for nitrogen dioxide outdoors by 1 January 2010, in order to protect human health (R (ClientEarth) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs).
• The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the government’s October 2011 consultation proposal to cut feed-in tariffs at short notice interfered with solar photovoltaic companies’ possessions (Department for Energy and Climate Change v Breyer Group plc and others).

 Housing:

• The High Court has refused a challenge to Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council’s selective licensing scheme, rejecting a claim that the council had failed to consider whether there were other courses of action open to it (R (Rotherham Action Group Ltd) v Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council).

Local government:

• Overruling the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court has held that the Services Directive permits licensing authorities to include in their licensing fees a charge to cover the costs of managing and enforcing the licence scheme (R (Hemming (t/a Simply Pleasure Ltd) and others) v Westminster City Council).

Property and planning:

• The Planning Inspectorate has republished Advice note 4: Section 52: Obtaining information about interests in land (Planning Act 2008) and Advice note five: Section 53: Rights of Entry (Planning Act 2008).

Public procurement:

• The High Court has given a ruling on applications under CPR 31.12 by a claimant (an unsuccessful bidder) for specific disclosure by a defendant contracting authority in a public procurement dispute (Geodesign Barriers Ltd v Environment Agency).

Social services:

• The Court of Appeal has:
  • stated that all litigants (in person or legally represented) must follow the appeals procedure in Part 30 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010. In cases where the threshold criteria rely on the children’s allegations, there is no duty for the court to consider whether the children should give oral evidence, although it is good practice (Re D (Children)); and
  • clarified how multiple applications in adoption proceedings should be dealt with, and confirmed that adoption orders cannot be made with conditions (Re W (Children)).
• The Court of Protection has confirmed that the basis for assessing whether costs claimed by a deputy who was a family member and provided care for an incapacitated person were reasonable (Re HC).