England and Wales High Court of Justice

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Hollingworth, R (on the application of) v Specialist training Authority of the Medical Rolyal Colleges, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 21, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1214 (Admin)



Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL

Friday, June 21, 2002
Before

MR JUSTICE LAWRENCE COLLINS
-------------
Between
CO4437/2000
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF
HOLLINGWORTH
and
THE SPECIALIST TRAINING AUTHORITY
OF THE MEDICAL ROYAL COLLEGES
-------------
CO4666/2001
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF
KUNDU
and
THE SPECIALIST TRAINING AUTHORITY
OF THE MEDICAL ROYAL COLLEGES
-------------
CO981/2002
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF
KHAN
and
THE SPECIALIST TRAINING AUTHORITY
OF THE MEDICAL ROYAL COLLEGES
-------------
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
-------------
Mr Richard Leiper (instructed by the British Medical Association)) for the Applicants.
Mr Philip Havers QC (instructed by Carter Lemon Camerons for the Respondents.
-------------
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©

13

Mr Justice Lawrence Collins:
I Introduction 1. Until 1996 the only statutory requirement for appointment as a consultant in the National Health Service was that the applicant should have been a registered medical practitioner and could satisfy an Advisory Appointments Committee that the applicant met the appropriate standards. Committees convened for this purpose included assessors appointed by the Royal Colleges of Medicine who by convention could not be...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Winter v DPP, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 10, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1524 (Admin)



1

Case No CO1986/2002
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1524 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL

Wednesday 10th July 2002
B e f o r e :
Mr Michael Supperstone, Q.C.
(Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
LETITIA WINTER
Appellant

- v -


DPP
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 Of...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Fox v HM Customs and Excise, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 03, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1244 (Admin)



Case No: CO387/2002
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1244 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL

Wednesday 3rd July 2002
Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE LIGHTMAN

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr Ian Wise (instructed by Howells, 15/17 Bridge Street, Sheffield S3 8NL) for the Appellant
Mr Andrew Bird (instructed by Solicitor of HM Customs and Excise, New Kings Beam House, 22 Upper Ground, London SE1 9PJ) for the Respondent

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©



Mr Justice Lightman:
INTRODUCTION 1. This is an appeal by way of Case Stated by the appellant Mr Ian Fox ("Mr Fox") against a decision dated the 11th October 2001 ("the D...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Feakins v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 20, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2574 (Admin)








Case No: CO/4303/2001
Neutral Citation No: [2002] EWHC 2574 (Admin)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 20th December 2002

Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE GOLDRING
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

STEPHEN SMITH QC AND STEPHEN TROMANS
(instructed by BURGES SALMON SOLICITOR) for the CLAIMANT

KENNETH PARKER QC AND PAUL HARRIS
(instructed by DEFRA) for the DEFENDANT

Hearing dates : 14th /15th November and 10th December 2002
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT : APPROVED BY THE COURT FOR HANDING DOWN (SUBJECT TO EDITORIAL CORRECTIONS)
Mr Justice Goldring :
Feakins
v
Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

The issue in this application

This is an interim application in a claim against the defendant for judicial review of various decisions of what is now the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ("DEFRA"), then the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food ("MAFF"). It concerns the slaughter of the claimant's and others' animals at the claimant's farm ("Sparum Farm") during the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak. Among other things, the claimant seeks a "Mandatory Order to compel the defendant to perform her statutory duty pursuant to section 34(2) of the Animal Health Act 1981 to bury, sell or otherwise dispose of animal carcasses and the burned remains of such carcasses now lying on or in land belonging to the claimant at Sparum Farm."

On 27 February 2002 there was a hearing before Mr. Justice Stanley Burnton. Permission to move for judicial review was granted in respect of the alleged breach of section 34(2) (as well as in respect of another alleged breach, irrelevant to the present proceedings). Permission was granted on the defendant's undertaking,
"(a) On or before 4.00PM on 27 March 2002 to remove from...[Sparum Farm]...so far as is practicable all ash and burned or partially burned animal carcasses or parts thereof now lying upon the surface of the ground thereat and forming part of or resulting from pyres built for the purpose of destroying the carcasses of animals slaughtered by the defendant, her servants or agents pursuant to the powers granted by section 31 of the Animal Health Act 1981...[1/5/51]."

A second undertaking concerning a lagoon was given. No issue arises regarding it.

The issue which has now arisen

A dispute has arisen regarding the removal of the relevant material ("the residue"). The defendant proposes to remove it directly to landfill at either Bishops Cleeve in Gloucestershire or Workington in Cumbria. The claimant contends that such removal would be unlawful. He contends that within the residue are the remains of cattle (whether burned or partially burned) born before 1 August 1996 ("old cattle"). Such is the risk of the presence of the infective protein ("prion") which causes Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy ("BSE") that the law requires the residue should first be incinerated. There is a risk of other cattle being infected by BSE. There is a risk to humans of exposure to BSE and thus to variant Creutzfeldt Jacob Disease ("vCJD"). Directly to bury the residue would be unlawful. I should grant a declaration to that effect.
It may at first sight be thought that provided the defendant removed the residue, the claimant would have little interest in its destination. He maintains he is or would be at risk of prosecution, at risk of civil liability and that, in any event, he is seeking this declaration in the public interest.
The facts
They are by no means straightforward. Many are in issue. At the final hearing, there will be oral evidence. However, I have no doubt I can resolve sufficient of them to decide this application.
The three pyres Sparum Farm is near Kidderminster in Worcestershire. It was primarily a sheep and cattle farm. On 7 March 2001 it was declared as infected by foot and mouth disease. On 9 March 2001 the animals on the farm were slaughtered on the (then) minister's orders. On about 13 March 2001 a pyre ("the first pyre") was constructed to cremate the carcasses of the claimant's animals. On 15 March 2001 it was lit. On 27 March 2001 the claimant agreed with Ministry officials to allow carcasses from neighbouring farms to be cremated on Sparum Farm for a fee. A second pyre was constructed. It was...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Environment Agency v R Newcomb & Sons Ltd. & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 16, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2095 (Admin)

Case No: CO/2508/2002
Neutral Citation Number [2002] EWHC 2095 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL

Wednesday 16 October 2002
Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NEWMAN

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Charles Morgan instructed by the Regional Solicitor, Environment Agency) for the Appellant
Alec Burns (instructed by Swinburne Maddison Solicitors) for the First and Second Respondents

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
(As approved by the Court)Mr Justice Newman :



1. This is an appeal by way of case stated from a decision of the magistrates sitting at Hartlepool Magistrates Court. The magistrates acquitted the Respondents, being a company, R Newcomb and Sons Limited and one of its directors, Stephen Newcomb, of offences under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, brought by the Environment Agency (``the Agency).
2. R Newcomb and Sons Limited (``the company'') owns the site at Newbourne Sidings, Coronation Drive, Seaton Carew, Hartlepool, the land in question having been purchased from Railtrack for company purposes; ultimately the creation of recreational facilities on the land in ...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Mullen, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State For the Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, February 12, 2002, [2002] 3 All ER 293,[2002] 1 WLR 1857,[2002] EWHC 230 (Admin)

Case No: CO/2285/2001
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 230 Admin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION - ADMINISTRATIVE COURT)

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL

Thursday 21st February 2002
Before:

LORD JUSTICE SIMON BROWN

and

MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Miss C Lloyd-Jacob (instructed by Messrs Christian Fisher) for the Claimant
P Sales Esq & H Keith Esq (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) for the Respondent

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©

Lord Justice Simon Brown:
Introduction
1. On 8th June 1990 at the Central Criminal Court the claimant was convicted of conspiracy to cause explosions likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property and was sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment. He was alleged to have acted as quartermaster for an active IRA unit in London. He had been arrested in Zimbabwe on 6th February 1989, immediately put on a plane to England and arrested on arrival at Gatwick the following day. 2. Leave to appeal against conviction out of time was granted on 19th January 1998. On 4th February 1999, after the claimant had been in prison for ten years, the Court of Appeal allowed his appeal. His deportation from Zimbabwe ...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Ryder, R (on the application of) v The Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 20, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1191 (Admin)

Case No: CO/4258/2001
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1191 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL

Thursday 20th June 2002
Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE LIGHTMAN

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of Smith Bernal Report...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

Year 2003
Year 2003

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Wandsworth Borough Council, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Transportation Local Government and the Regions & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 29, 2003, [2003] EWHC 622 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE
CO/1344/2002
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 622 Admin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2

Wednesday, 29 January 2003
B E F O R E:

MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN

- - - - - - -

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF WANDSWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL
(CLAIMANT)
-v-
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS
(DEFENDANT)
and
02 UK LTD
(formerly BT Cellnet Ltd)
(INTERESTED PARTY)
- - - - - - -
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - -
DR D WOLFE (instructed by ASB Law) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT
MISS S J DAVIES (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
MR G ROOTS QC and MR C BOYLE (instructed by Lawrence Graham) appeared on behalf of the INTERESTED PARTY
- - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
(As Approved by the Court)
- - - - - - -
Crown copyright©

1. MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN: This is a challenge by the claimant local planning authority to an inspector's decision to quash an enforcement notice served by the authority upon the interested party. The enforcement notice alleged that the interested party had erected a telecommunications mast in breach of planning control because it exceeded the 15 metre height limit upon masts that can be erected as permitted development under the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 1995.
2. Part 24 of Schedule 2 to the 1995 order grants planning permission for certain forms of telecommunications equipment including, subject to various conditions, masts of the kind with which this case is concerned. Condition A.1 of Part 24 states that -
"Development is not permitted by Class ..... if -
(a) ..... the ..... apparatus ..... excluding any antenna, would exceed a height of 15 metres above [the] ground ..... " Condition A.2 (4) sets out a procedure - before beginning development the developer must apply to the local planning authority for its determination as to whether the authority's prior approval to sit...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Jones, R (on the application of) v Mansfield District Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 20, 2003, [2003] EWHC 7 (Admin)

Case No: CO/1676/2002
Neutral Citation No: [2003] EWHC 7 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL

Monday 20 January 2003
Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE RICHARDS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr David Wolfe (instructed by Public Interest Lawyers) for the Claimant
Mr John Steel QC and Miss Sarah-Jane Davies (instructed by Browne Jacobson)
for the Defendant

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the CourtMr Justice Richards:

1. By these proceedings the claimant challenges the grant of outline planning permission for the development of an industrial estate on a 28.4 hectare site off Abbot Road, Mansfield. The claimant lives opposite the site and at present has uninterrupted views of open countryside and uses the site for walks and other recreational purposes. Understandably she objects to the development. The legal issue, however, is whether it was reasonable for the defendant council to decide that an environmental impact assessment (``EIA'') was not required before planning permission could be granted; in particular, whether the council could reasonably conclude in the circumstances that the development was not likely to have significant effects on the environment.
2. The council originally determined to grant outline planning permission in November 2001, but the claimant challenged the validity of that decision on the ground that it had been reached without proper consideration of whether an EIA was required. The council agreed to reconsider the question of an EIA and the challenge was withdrawn. On 25 February 2002 the council's Planning Committee reached two decisions: first, that an EIA was not required, and secondly that planning permission should be granted. The claimant challenges the first decision on the ground that it was unreasonable and unlawful, and the second decision on the ground that the grant of planning permission was flawed by the unlawful decision not to require an EIA.
Legal framework
3. The relevant regulations are the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988. Those regulations have been replaced by 1999 regulations in respect of applications made after 15 March 1999. The 1999 regulations are materially the same. Both sets of regulations implement Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.
4. Regulation 4(2) of the 1988 Regulations provides:
``The local planning authority or the Secretary of State or an inspector shall not grant planning permission pursuant to an application to which this regulation applies unless they have first taken the environmental information into consideration and state in their decision that they have done so.'' 5. The question in this case is whether the application was one to which the regulation applied. By regulation 4(1), the regulation applies inter alia to any ``Schedule 2 application'', which is defined by regulation 2(1)...
[/align]