Clearance in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • London Residuary Body v Lambeth London Borough Council and Another
    • House of Lords
    • 10 May 1990

    In my opinion nothing in either the Clyde & Co. case or in the Westminster Council case is properly to be interpreted as laying down that the competing needs test exists as a matter of law. The most that can be extracted from the two cases is that the desirability of preserving an existing use of land is a consideration material to be taken into account under that subsection, provided there is a reasonable probability that such use will be preserved if permission for the new use is refused.

  • Westminster City Council v British Waterways Board
    • House of Lords
    • 31 Oct 1984

  • Nottinghamshire County Council v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport & Regions and Another
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 29 Mar 2001

    Therefore, in considering whether to grant planning permission for a proposal (use B) which will pre-empt the possibility of the desirable future use (use A), the relative desirability of the two uses have to be weighed. In striking the balance, the likelihood of use A actually coming about is doubtless a highly material consideration.

  • SmithKline Beecham Plc v Generics UK Ltd
    • Court of Appeal
    • 24 Jul 2003

    However it is important under the CPR to have in mind the overriding principles when considering whether to lift an order made under CPR 31.22. The most important consideration must be the interest of justice which involves considering the interest of the party seeking to use the documents and that of the party protected by the CPR 31.22 order. As Lord Oliver said each case will depend upon its own facts.

  • Mr M Wall, Mr M Black, Mrs S Wall, Mr D Birch, Mr D Carter, Mr M James v Winchester City Council (1st Respondent) Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Interested Party)
    • Court of Appeal
    • 17 Mar 2015

    It is possible that the use of the word "limitation" in the judgments has contributed to the misunderstanding of the effect of the I'm Your Man line of authorities. The simple proposition which should not be lost sight of is that the use for which a planning permission is granted must be ascertained by interpreting the words in the planning permission itself.

  • Campbell Court Property Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 09 Feb 2001

    I realise that what takes place on the ground cannot be conclusive and agree with Ms Robinson's submission that caution has to be exercised because landowners may choose not to implement the whole of a planning permission, and may carry out development in breach of planning control. But if the documentary evidence is sparse, I do not see why the purported implementation of a planning permission on the ground, if done without any complaint over many years, should be altogether ignored.

  • London Borough of Lambeth v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Aberdeen Asset Management and Others (Interested Parties)
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 03 Oct 2017

    In consequence, I consider that the 2014 permission was ambiguous on its face. Despite the stated approval of the variation of the condition as to use, which restricted sale to non-food goods, the "Conditions" in the permission did not include any condition restricting use to the sale of non-food goods. Because of the ambiguity I conclude that it is permissible to consider the 1985 and 2010 permissions, and application for the variation in 2014.

See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
  • CFIUS Clearance: Melrose Industries and GKN PLC
    • LexBlog United Kingdom
    • Squire Patton Boggs
    • 25 de Junio de 2018
    Status:  Clearance   Acquirer:  Melrose Industries PLC (UK) Acquired:  GKN PLC (UK) Value:  Approximately US$11 billion (£8.8 Billion) Industry:  Aerospace; Automotive; Engineering On February 1, 2...
  • Regulator Clarifies Clearance
    • Mondaq United Kingdom
    • 12 de Septiembre de 2007
  • CFIUS Filing Clearance: BC Partners and Presidio, Inc.
    • LexBlog United Kingdom
    • Squire Patton Boggs
    • 22 de Enero de 2020
    Status:                  Clearance Acquirer:             BC Partners (United Kingdom) Acquired:            Presidio, Inc. (US) Value:                   Approx. US$2.2 billion Industry:             ...
  • CFIUS Filing Clearance: BC Partners/Medina Capital/Longview Asset Management and CenturyLink
    • LexBlog United Kingdom
    • Squire Patton Boggs
    • 5 de Octubre de 2017
    Status:  Clearance Acquirer:  BC Partners (United Kingdom); Medina Capital (US); Longview Asset Management Ltd. (Canada) Acquired:   CenturyLink, Inc. (US) Value:  Approx. US$2.3 billion Industry: ...
See all results