by Hardwick Legal | Feb 19, 2019 | Purpose Built (LexisNexis)
<p>In this second podcast of 2019, Mark Davies and Christopher Badger of 6 Pump Court consider and discuss:</p><p data-level="1" data-list="1">- the Clean Air Strategy 2019</p><p data-level="1" data-list="1">- hot topics in the relationship between investment treaties and environmental protection, and</p><p data-level="1" data-list="1">- the problems causing hyperactivity of eels in the River Thames </p><p data-level="1" data-list="1">To listen to the podcast click <a href="[Telerik.Sitefinity.Libraries.Model.Document|OpenAccessDataProvider|lng:en]3a07969d-9282-4ff4-b994-d6fe2dac9aec">here </a></p><p><b>For a </b><b>discussion of the 2019
clean air </b><b>strategy –</b> <b>listen from 0.41minutes</b></p><p>Mark and Chris discuss reasons for the continued lack of improvement in air quality until now and ask
are we turning a corner with the government’s latest clean air strategy which prioritises air quality
and aims to improve human health?</p><p>They outline the government’s
ambitious plans to legislate to prohibit sale of the most polluting fuels; to
phase out oil and coal heating; and to extend environmental permitting to the
dairy and intensive beef farming sectors.</p><p><b>Investment treaties and environmental protection - listen from 4.32m</b></p><p>Next Mark and Chris turn to
investment treaties and ask, as we head towards a no-deal Brexit, what</p>
Source: LexisNexis Purpose Built
LexisPSL Environment News Podcast - February 2019
by Hardwick Legal | Feb 15, 2019 | Purpose Built (LexisNexis)
<p><img alt="38535298_custom" src="[images%7COpenAccessDataProvider%7Ctmb%3Acarouselth]d0677b7a-c49d-4812-a48b-471437588b6f" sf-size="527685"></p><p>The Court of Appeal considered that while an insolvent company in liquidation can, in theory, commence an adjudication, it was appropriate to grant an injunction restraining continuation of the adjudication. This is because the adjudication would be ‘an
exercise in futility’—it will only be in exceptional circumstances that a company in insolvent liquidation (and facing a potential cross-claim) could obtain summary judgment to enforce an adjudication without a stay of execution being
ordered.
<i>Bresco Electrical Services Ltd v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd; Cannon Corporate Ltd v Primus Build Ltd</i> <a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/construction/document/316762/8TND-JPN2-8T41-D2D7-00000-00" target="_blank">[2019] EWCA Civ 27</a></p><p><i>First published on Lexis</i><i>PSL Construction.</i></p><h3>What are the practical implications of this case?</h3><div>Practitioners should take this case as clear guidance that a company in liquidation is unlikely to be permitted to adjudicate against a respondent that has a potential cross-claim. Although injunctions are rarely granted where an adjudication is on
foot, one can be ordered to prevent commencement/continuation of an adjudication where progressing with the adjudication would be pointless (and a waste of time and costs). This futility arises from the fact that enforcement of an adjudication
decision in favour of a company in insolvent liquidation (without a stay of execution being ordered) will only be granted in an exceptional case.
</div><div> </div><h3>What was the background?</h3><div>The TCC had granted an injunction preventing the continuation of an adjudication in which Bresco (which was in insolvent liquidation) sought declarations and sums said to be due and payable by Lonsdale. This was on the basis that:
</div><div> </div><ul><li>an adjudicator does not have the necessary jurisdiction to deal with a claim advanced by a company in insolvent liquidation (</li></ul>
Source: LexisNexis Purpose Built
Court of Appeal considers interplay of insolvency and adjudication regimes (Bresco v Lonsdale)
by Hardwick Legal | Feb 14, 2019 | Purpose Built (LexisNexis)
<p>The <a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-planning-appeal-inquiries-report">outcome</a> of Bridget Rosewell’s independent review of planning appeal inquiries has triggered a series of <a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="https://www.theparliamentaryreview.co.uk/news/hiltongrove-welcome-government-review-stating-time-taken-for-planning-appeals-could-be-cut-by-halfhttps:/www.gov.uk/government/news/appeal-decisions-could-be-cut-by-5-months">headlines</a> focusing on, and welcoming, the proposals to cut the time taken for planning inquiries by half. </p><p>The headlines are based on recommendation 21 of the <a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/777823/Independent_Review_of_Planning_Appeal_Inquiries_Main_Report.pdf">report</a> published on 12 February 2019, the which states that:</p><p> <i>The Planning Inspectorate should adopt the following targets for the effective management of inquiry appeals from receipt to decision:</i></p><ol type="a"><li data-list="0" data-level="1"><i>Inquiry appeals decided by the Inspector </i></li></ol><p><i>Receipt to decision – within 24 weeks - 90% of cases </i></p><p><i>Receipt to decision – within 26 weeks - remaining 10% of cases </i></p><ol start="2" type="a"><li data-list="0" data-level="1"><i>Inquiry appeals decided by the Secretary of State </i></li></ol><p><i>Receipt to submission of inspector’s report - within 30 weeks - 100% of cases </i></p><p>Those targets compare favourably to the finding, set out at the start of the report, that for the period of 2017/2018, the average time from receipt of an appeal to decision by an inspector following an inquiry was 47 weeks (and longer for recovered appeals and inquiries into called-in applications).</p><p>The government has also been quick to <a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/appeal-decisions-could-be-cut-by-5-months">say</a> that speeding up decisions in this way can help the government achieve its ambition of delivering 300,000 homes each year by the mid-2020s.</p><p>However, what lies beneath the government spin is more nuanced and deserves further commentary. </p><p>On the aspect of housing delivery, it is of note that the government’s terms of reference required that the review should focus particularly on the role of planning appeal inquiries in major housing schemes. Nevertheless, the review does not make any specific findings in respect of how inquiries into such sche</p>
Source: LexisNexis Purpose Built
Beyond the headlines: the independent review of planning appeal inquiries
