Energy in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v East Northamptonshire District Council and Others
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 18 February 2014

    Section 70(3) of the Planning Act provides that section 70(1), which confers the power to grant planning permission, has effect subject to, inter alia, sections 66 and 72 of the Listed Buildings Act. Section 70(2) requires the decision-maker to have regard to "material considerations" when granting planning permission, but Parliament has made the power to grant permission having regard to material considerations expressly subject to the section 66(1) duty.

    For these reasons, I agree with Lang J's conclusion that Parliament's intention in enacting section 66(1) was that decision-makers should give "considerable importance and weight" to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings when carrying out the balancing exercise. I also agree with her conclusion that the Inspector did not give considerable importance and weight to this factor when carrying out the balancing exercise in this decision.

  • Halliburton Energy Services Inc. v Smith International (North Sea) Ltd
    • Chancery Division (Patents Court)
    • 21 July 2005

    The first is merely the trite principle that the addressee of the specification is the person skilled in the art, who approaches the document with the common general knowledge. Second, there may be obscurities and difficulties in a claim that cannot be resolved by an appeal to context. Finally, and most importantly, over-meticulousness is not to be equated to carefulness. Care in working out what the patentee was aiming at when he chose the words he used is absolutely necessary.

  • Lloyde v West Midlands Cas Board
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 12 March 1971

    It means that a plaintiff prima facie establishes negligence where: (1) it is not possible for him to prove precisely what was the relevant act or omission which set in train the events leading to the accident; but (ii) on the evidence as it stands at the relevant time it is more likely than not that the effective cause of the accident was some acts or omission of the defendant or of someone for whom the defendant is responsible, which act or omission constitutes a failure to take proper care for the plaintiff a safety.

  • Manchester, Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of the City of v Farnworth
    • House of Lords
    • 28 November 1929

    When Parliament has authorised a certain thing to be made or done in a certain place, there can be no action for nuisance caused, by the making or doing of that thing if the nuisance is the inevitable result of the making or doing so authorised.

    The Appellants are right in saying that the Manchester Corporation Act, 1914, is not a "special Act" within Section 1 of the Electric Lighting Clauses Act of 1899, but in effect varies or excepts the operation of the scheduled clauses of that Act. What is required or them is to use all due and reasonable means and precautions to avoid a nuisance. The burden of proving that they have done so is on them.

  • R (Finn-Kelcey) v Milton Keynes Council
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 10 October 2008

    I would respectfully agree that, where the CPR has expressly provided for a three month time limit, the courts cannot adopt a policy that in judicial review challenges to the grant of a planning permission a time limit of six weeks will in practice apply. However, that does not seem to me to rob the point made by Simon Brown Jothers of all of its force.

See all results
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT