header-logo header-logo

13 October 2017
Issue: 7765 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Town & country planning

Gladman Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another [2017] EWHC 2448 (Admin), [2017] All ER (D) 50 (Oct)

The first defendant Secretary of State had differed from his inspector on a matter of fact and the reason why he had done so was because he had taken into account new evidence without having activated the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000, SI 2000/1624, r 17(5). The Planning Court, in allowing the claimant’s application to quash the Secretary of State’s refusal of planning permission, held that the Secretary of State could not show that the breach had made no difference to the outcome.

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

Ward Hadaway—19 promotions

Ward Hadaway—19 promotions

19 promotions across national offices, including two new partners

Brabners—Ruth Hargreaves

Brabners—Ruth Hargreaves

Partner promoted to head of corporate team

Slater Heelis—Liam Hall, Jordan Bear & Joe Madigan

Slater Heelis—Liam Hall, Jordan Bear & Joe Madigan

Chester office expansion accelerates with triple appointment

NEWS
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has reignited debate over what exactly counts as the ‘conduct of litigation’ in modern legal practice
A controversial High Court financial remedies ruling has reignited debate over secrecy, non-disclosure and fairness in divorce proceedings involving hidden wealth
Britain’s deferred prosecution agreement regime is undergoing a significant shift, with prosecutors placing renewed emphasis on corporate cooperation, reform and early self-reporting
The High Court has upheld the Metropolitan Police’s live facial recognition policy, rejecting claims that its deployment unlawfully interferes with privacy and protest rights
As AI chatbots increasingly provide legal and commercial advice, English law is beginning to confront who should bear responsibility when automated systems get things wrong
back-to-top-scroll