You are here

Filter content

Bloomsburry Family law


Westminster City Council v Haw [2002] EWHC 1885 (QB)

Public and Administrative Law - Planning Law - Human Rights - Remedies - Highways - Injunction - Obstruction to highway - Defendant mounted constant protest near Parliament - Defendant’s placard encroached on to public highway - Claimant sought injunction to prevent protest and remove placards - Placards were not advertisements - Protest was reasonable - No interference with public’s right to pass and repass on highway - Injunction would interfere with defendant’s right to freedom of expression - Injunction refused - Highways Act 1980, s 130(1) - Town and Country Planning Act 1990, s 224 - European Convention on Human Rights Art 11

R (Ahmadi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Human Rights - Judicial Review - Immigration - Asylum - Claimant sought asylum in UK following fleeing from Afghanistan to Germany - Claimant had arguable case on medical evidence that return to Germany would so adversely affect mental health of family as to be in breach of European Convention on Human Rights Art 8

Laing Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions [2002] EWHC 1967 (Admin)

Planning Law - Applications for residential development of greenfield sites as urban extensions - Both applications called in - Secretary of State decided that permission should be granted for first site on basis of housing need - Claimant complained that Secretary of State’s decision determined its application because need justified release of only one of sites - Secretary of State not obliged to undertake comparative assessment - Comparative assessment not required by PPG3 - Claimant could be person aggrieved by decision - No unfairness in way Secretary of State dealt with matter - Challenge to decision dismissed - Town and Country Planning Act 1990, s 288

Wright v Law Society

Solicitors — Human Rights — Law Society resolved to intervene in solicitors’ practice — Applicant partners obtained interim relief restraining intervention on without notice application — Court refused to continue interim relief — Court had no power to devise less draconian intervention regime — Law Society had good grounds for suspecting dishonesty — Intervention did not contravene human rights since Law Society acted in the public interest and subject to conditions provided for by law — Solicitors Act 1974 sched 1 — European Convention on Human Rights First Protocol Art 1