Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The High Court dismissed a section 288 challenge to a planning inspector’s decision, holding that a lawful development certificate did not restrict motorcycle numbers.
The Court of Appeal dismissed a planning judicial review appeal over a new household waste recycling centre, holding that alternative sites were adequately considered and no material factual error occurred.
Hilltop Experiences Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Norfolk County Council [2026] EWCA Civ 541 (06 May 2026)
Court of Appeal dismissed a planning judicial review challenge over a new household waste recycling centre, holding the alternatives assessment and officer report were not unlawful.
The High Court refused permission for a late judicial review of Elmbridge’s planning permission, rejecting an extension of time and finding notification was adequate.
Jaks Bars & Restaurants Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor [2026] EWHC 966 (Admin) (24 April 2026)
The High Court quashed an inspector’s refusal of planning permission to extend bar opening hours, finding failures to address a licensing report and the licensing regime’s role.
Heart of Wales Care Ltd & Ors v The Council of the City And County of Swansea - [2026] EWHC 899 (Admin) (17 April 2026)
The court held that Swansea Council’s care-home fee uplift decision was unlawful for failing to comply with statutory code requirements and for inadequate consultation over NI changes.
Sandy Park Farm Partnership v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors [2026] EWHC 422 (Admin) (26 February 2026)
The High Court dismissed a section 288 challenge to a planning appeal decision granting outline permission for 350 dwellings at Exeter, rejecting policy, weight, and habitats grounds.
The Council did not misinterpret or misapply Policy SADM5, properly applied the sequential test, correctly assessed highways impact, and was not legally obliged to consider the intended occupier in the sequential test; all grounds are unarguable and permission is refused.
Source excerpt
The Secretary of State is not under a legal obligation to assess the impact of revocation of a sponsor licence on the sponsor, its employees, service users, or the wider community before revoking for mandatory breaches. Impact is a discretionary consideration, not a mandatory one, and the SSHD need not provide reasons for not exercising residual discretion unless a particular reason is raised. Procedural fairness is satisfied by the process in the guidance. However, in SCL’s case, the SSHD’s finding of dishonesty was procedurally unfair as the allegation was not clearly put to the sponsor pri…
Source excerpt
Supreme Court planning appeal on whether habitat assessment is needed at reserved-matters discharge, and whether NPPF policy can protect Ramsar sites at that stage.
Explore more
