Monthly News Archives: November 2009
30 November 2009
R (Buglife) v. Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation  EWHC 475 (Admin),  EWCA Civ 1209,  EWCA Civ 29
By Angus McCullough, One Crown Office Row
Protective Costs Orders (PCOs) are a relatively new feature on the legal landscape. The Buglife case is of general significance in relation to the procedure and approach to be adopted in relation to PCOs, and associated costs caps, as set out in the Court of Appeal’s judgment of 4 November 2008, which is reported at  Env LR 18 (Buglife (1)). Separately and more specifically, the substantive claim for judicial review is also notable, as an example of the Court’s approach to a planning decision to allow a development on a site of environmental significance. This was also considered by the Court of Appeal: Buglife (2).
Read full article
19 November 2009
(1)Novartis Pharmaceuticals Uk Ltd (2) Andrew Roy Grantham v (1) Stop Huntingdon Aminal Cruelty (SHAC) by its representative Max Gastone (2) Greg Avery (3) Natasha Avery (4) Heather James  EWHC 2716 (QBD)
Sweeney J 30 October 2009
An injunction against animal rights protesters could not be altered to increase the restriction on their protest without a disproportionate interference with the protesters’ rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.
Click below for summary and comment by Rosalind English or here to read the full judgment
Continue reading →
18 November 2009
R (on the application of EW) v Secretary of State for the Home Department,  EWHC 2957 (Admin) 18 November 2009 – read judgment
Summary and comment by Rosalind English
Article 3 does not dictate a minimum standard of social support for those in need, nor does it require the state to provide a home or minimum level of financial assistance to all within its care.
W was an Eritrean national who had entered the UK illegally. Fingerprint evidence traced his irregular entry into the EC to Italy following which the UK authorities sought from the Italian authorities an undertaking to accept responsibility for W’s application for asylum under the terms of the Dublin II Regulation. Italy did not respond and therefore it was deemed to have accepted responsibility for the asylum claim by default.
Continue reading →