header-logo header-logo

02 April 2010
Issue: 7411 & 7412 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Town and country planning

R (on the application of Hillingdon London Borough Council and others) v Secretary of State for Transport (Transport for London, interested party) [2010] EWHC 626 (Admin), [2010] All ER (D) 253 (Mar)

In January 2009, the secretary of state made a statement to the House of Commons announcing his conclusions following the consultation. It was said that the government remained convinced that additional capacity at Heathrow was “critical to [the UK’s] long-term economic prosperity” and that the same would be subject to a new “green-slots” principle, which was concerned with incentivising the use of “the most modern aircraft”, in order to reduce carbon emissions and provide benefits for air quality and noise. A challenge to that statement by way of judicial review was allowed. The court ruled that the decision was not immune from challenge by way of judicial review.

The scope of the review, however, was limited by two factors: (i) the ‘high level’ character of the policy judgments that were made; and (ii) the preliminary nature of the decision. In that light,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll