Judge rules that Michaela School can be named at High Court hearing on alleged prayer ban

 Schools Week LINK reports today the Michaela Free School's request that the school not be named was reject edby Judge Linden in today's High Court hearing regarding a Judicial Review requested on behalf of a pupil.

The Judicial Review is over the alleged banning of Muslim pupils from taking part in prayer rituals at the school that resulted in a public petition with more than 4,000 signatories in March 2023. LINK

Judge Linden said:

I do not accept the that the evidence in this case shows a risk to the lives or safety of members of the school staff or its wider community which would justify holding this hearing in private.

The petition is no longer on the Change.org website but said in part regarding the alleged ban:

A school that prides itself on being “multi cultural” and “multi faith” is treating their Muslim students in this way?? What’s worse is that this school is majority Muslim students and there is no prayer room designated for them. Students have requested for a prayer room which has  been refused by the school and so they have to pray on the floor outside.

 Judge Linden accepted the application for the claimant, a pupil, to be referred to as “TTT”  and another person involved in the litigation, to be referred to as “UUU”.

 

As the hearing is in progress I will not publish any comments until the case is over.

Good Law Project takes sewage scandal to High Court next week

 From Good Law Project

On Wednesday 5 to Thursday 6 July, the High Court will hear a legal challenge that aims to force the Government to toughen up its plan for reducing sewage dumped in England’s rivers and seas. Good Law Project is supporting the Marine Conservation Society, Richard Haward’s Oysters and surfer and activist Hugo Tagholm as they argue that the Government’s strategy is inadequate, allowing water companies to pollute waters and beaches for another 27 years.

England’s sewers were designed with 14,500 storm overflows to stop them becoming overwhelmed, allowing a mixture of surface water and sewage to be discharged during heavy rainfall. But according to the Environment Agency, these overflows are now used on a routine basis. Water companies discharged untreated sewage through storm overflows more than 300,000 times in 2022 for a total of 1.7 million hours.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) published the Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan to tackle this in August last year. It imposed a deadline of 2035 for reducing the sewage flowing into bathing waters and areas of ecological importance, but gave companies until 2050 to stop discharges elsewhere.

This legal challenge, which has been backed by cross-party MPs, aims to force the Government to bring forward these deadlines and introduce tougher targets. 

Facing pressure from this case, DEFRA has already announced a consultation on expanding its storm overflows plan to include protections for coastal and estuarine waters. This initial win for the claimants, which the Marine Conservation Society hailed as “a huge victory for our seas”, means that one of the legal grounds has already been settled before even being heard in the courtroom.

Success in this case could set a landmark precedent, which would allow others to use an ancient English legal principle called the Public Trust Doctrine to compel those in power to protect the natural environment.

Legal Director of Good Law Project, Emma Dearnaley, said:

The public is - rightly - angry and upset and calling for urgent action on sewage pollution.

This hearing is a huge moment for the future of our rivers and seas. This is our chance to force the Government to put in place a robust plan to put an end to the sewage scandal blighting our country.
 

Success in this case could also set a significant legal precedent by reviving an ancient legal principle that would require the Government to take positive steps to protect our shared natural resources. This is a potential game changer for future environmental challenges.

CEO of the Marine Conservation Society, Sandy Luk, said:

This is a momentous court case to hold the UK Government to account for our right to a clean and healthy ocean. 

This is achievable, but we need urgent and decisive action from the Government to make it happen. For the sake of people and planet, we need sewage-free seas.

8th generation oysterman, and Director of Operations at Richard Haward’s Oysters, Tom Haward, said:

For eight generations the Haward family have grown oysters in Essex and sold them throughout the UK and beyond. Our livelihood balances completely on water quality. 

We work hard to protect and nurture the environment we rely on to produce our oysters, and the relentless dumping of sewage into our seas risks destroying something so precious. 

Just as we invest in our business so that my daughter and future generations can be proud of and continue our legacy, so too should water companies be held accountable and invest in ensuring British waterways are flourishing and safe ecosystems that future generations can enjoy.

High Court challenge on PEEPs (Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans) gets the go ahead

 From Disability News Service

Two campaigners have won permission from the high court to challenge the government’s refusal to ensure that all disabled people can safely evacuate from high-rise blocks of flats in emergencies.

Georgie Hulme and Sarah Rennie, co-founders of the disabled-led leaseholder action group Claddag and both of them wheelchair-users who live in high-rise buildings, have been told they can apply for a judicial review of the decision made by former home secretary Priti Patel.

Patel rejected the Grenfell Tower Inquiry’s recommendation that all owners and managers of high-rise residential buildings should be forced to prepare a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) for all residents who might find it difficult to “self-evacuate”.

That rejection – on the grounds of “practicality”, “proportionality” and “safety” – came despite a promise from prime minister Boris Johnson that he would implement all the recommendations from the inquiry’s first phase.

Hulme and Rennie have now been granted permission to seek a judicial review of the decision and have been told they have an “arguable” case.

It is hoped the court will hear their legal challenge by the end of the year.

The judge who heard their application has also agreed to cap their costs, so if they lose their case they will have to pay a maximum of £20,000 towards Home Office costs, as well as court fees that are likely to be no more than £1,500.

Claddag has so far raised nearly £16,000 through a crowdfunding appeal, but still needs to raise about another £5,500 to continue with the case.

Claddag’s solicitors, Bhatt Murphy, are working on a “no win no fee” basis, and if Rennie and Hulme are successful with their case, all the unused donations will be returned.

Hulme told Disability News Service: 

“Whilst the permission for a hearing is great news, the fact that the government needs to be held to account in this way is sadly another example of how it considers disabled, deaf and older people’s lives as less worthy.

“We appreciate the devastating impacts of both the cost of living and the building safety crises, but any small donation will help us, as a community, to get our day in court.”

The government’s rejection of the PEEPs recommendation came even though those who responded to a consultation on the proposal overwhelmingly supported their introduction.

High Court challenge on Government failure to implement Grenfell Inquiries recommendations on PEEPs

 From Bhatt Murply Solicitors

Bhatt Murphy clients issue High Court challenge to government failure to implement Grenfell Inquiry recommendations on personal emergency evacuation plans (‘PEEPs’) for disabled people

Bhatt Murphy Solicitors have issued an application for judicial review against the Secretary of State for the Home Department on behalf of Sarah Rennie, Georgie Hulme and CLADDAG, an organisation founded by Ms Rennie and Ms Hulme which campaigns for disabled leaseholders and tenants in residential buildings impacted by the building safety crisis.

The Claimants are seeking permission to bring judicial review proceedings challenging the Government’s refusal to implement October 2019 recommendations made by the Chair of the Grenfell Inquiry mandating PEEPs for all residents whose ability to self-evacuate in an emergency may be compromised.

Mark Scott and Joanna Khan at Bhatt Murphy act for the claimants.

 

Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 1 report: recommendations at paragraphs 33.22 (e) & (f):

“…the owner and manager of every high-rise residential building be required by law…to prepare personal emergency evacuation plans for all residents whose ability to self-evacuate may be compromised (such as persons with reduced mobility or cognition)” and

“…the owner and manager of every high-rise residential building be required by law to include up-to-date information about persons with reduced mobility and their associated PEEPs in the premises information box” (“the PEEPs recommendations”)

 

The The Claimants argue that the outcome of the PEEPs consultation (i.e. the Government decision not to implement the PEEPs recommendations) is unlawful, including because:

 

a.     The failure to implement PEEPs constitutes a breach of disabled residents’ right to life and to freedom from discrimination under Articles 2 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as a breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty, under which the Home Secretary must have regard to the need to eliminate discrimination against disabled people;

b.     The consultation process was unfair, including because the Home Office held follow-up meetings with representatives of local authorities and housing associations after the consultation responses had been received, allowing concerns to be raised to which the Claimants and others had no opportunity to respond;

c.     The government has failed to understand the rationale behind the PEEPs recommendations: evidence heard by the Grenfell Tower Inquiry concerning the need for all residents to be able to evacuate in certain situations, even in buildings with a ‘stay-put’ strategy.

 

The Claimants have made an application for the court to consider the case urgently. They expect to hear in around September 2022 whether permission has been granted to proceed.

 

72 people died in the fire at Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017. A disproportionate number of those who died were disabled persons whose ability to evacuate via the sole means of escape, the single staircase, was compromised. There were no plans or arrangements in place to assist these residents to evacuate in the event of a fire

 

 

Heathrow Third Runway: Legal victory to be defended in Supreme Court

 The Friends of the Earth victory in the battle against a third runway at Heathrow Airport will be defended in the Supreme Court today.

 

Following the environmental campaigners’ triumph in the Court of Appeal earlier this year, Heathrow Airport Limited has appealed to the Supreme Court in a last-ditch bid to rescue its plan for the runway.

 

Lawyers for Friends of the Earth will argue that Court of Appeal judges were right to rule that the Government’s decision to give the runway the go-ahead in the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) was unlawful. 

 

They ruled that the Government could not ignore its international climate change commitments under the Paris Agreement, which requires the UK to sharply and quickly reduce its investment in fossil fuel infrastructure.

 

Judges said the Secretary of State for Transport (then Chris Grayling) had breached s10 of the Planning Act 2008, and acted irrationally by disregarding the Paris Agreement, the non-CO2 warming impacts of aviation, and the effects of climate change beyond 2050. He also breached his duty to undertake a lawful strategic environmental assessment in accordance with the requirements of the SEA Directive and the SEA Regulations.

 

Following the judgment, the Government and Arora Holdings decided not to pursue their legal case any further, but Heathrow Airport Limited pressed on and was granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

 

Friends of the Earth is represented by Leigh Day solicitors and barristers David Wolfe QC of Matrix Chambers, Peter Lockley of 11 Kings Bench Walk Chambers and Andrew Parkinson of Landmark Chambers.

 

Will Rundle, head of legal at Friends of the Earth, said:

 

“Without the government in the picture, this case has become one about business interests versus the wellbeing of people everywhere facing the impact of the climate crisis.

“The Court of Appeal rightly ruled against the expansion of Heathrow, and we’re now here to defend our historic win for the planet. The government accepted illegal advice to ignore the Paris Climate Agreement when making the initial decision to approve the third runway. Heathrow is now trying to completely ignore this fact with its appeal.

“We are pleased that the Supreme Court will now make an authoritative ruling and remain confident the court will re-affirm that the Paris Agreement cannot be ignored, and all the damaging climate impacts of Heathrow expansion must be fully considered in any decision over expansion.”

 

Jenny Bates, climate campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said:

 

“As we plan for a future in the wake of the dreadful Covid-19 pandemic, it’s key that the UK invests in low-carbon, resilient infrastructure and creates green jobs in sectors such as clean transport, renewable energy and home insulation. A new runway at Heathrow is the opposite of what we need to be building. It would lead to a huge increase in emissions and undermine the UK’s duty to fight the climate crisis.

 

“Heathrow has talked up easy fixes to get the Third Runway pushed through, but these fixes rely on undeveloped technology, and ineffective carbon offsetting to make their plans appear more climate friendly.”

 

Rowan Smith, solicitor in the environmental law team at Leigh Day, said:

 

“We trust that the Supreme Court will agree with the Court of Appeal when it concluded that there was absolutely no legal means by which the Government could ignore its international climate change commitments under the Paris Agreement.

 

“They made it clear that such an omission fatally undermined the lawfulness of the policy to allow a third runway at Heathrow Airport. 

 

“The Lord Justices simply followed the legal framework set by Parliament and found that the Secretary of State was legally bound to consider the Paris Agreement which was so obviously material to a decision on Heathrow Airport expansion.”

 

Brent Council must attend mediation with Bridge Park campaigners before July 20th High Court hearing

The High Court Hearing to hear litigation between Bridge Park campaigners and Brent Council LINK will take place on July 20th.

Am Emergency Notice on Brent Council Forward Plan gives the Chief Executive as the decision maker and states that before July 20th a date has to be fixed for  mediation between the parties:

The hearing in respect of the litigation will commence on 20 July 2020. This was uncertain until the conclusion of a hearing on 6 July 2020. No date for the mediation, which is intended to take place prior to the hearing commencing, has yet been fixed. The date of the hearing has been fixed by the Court and the mediation process requires that the Chief Executive be in a position to reach a binding agreement with the other parties to the litigation, hence the need for the usual period of notice in relation to the Forward Plan along with call-in to be waived.

Next week will be busy with the  recount for the Barnhill by-election taking place in the Royal Courts of Justice  on July 17th and 18th. The Chief Executive was the Returning Officer for the by-election.

Barnhill By-Election recount fixed for July 16th and 17th

I understand that the High Court has fixed the date for the disputed Barnhill by-election count will take place on July 16th and 17th at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand. Numbers of attendees will be limited due to social distancing measures being in place.

The by-election was held on January 23rd following the resignations of Michael Pavey and Sarah Marquis and was won narrowly by the Labour candidates.

The petition submitted by the Conservative Party under the Representation of the People Act sets out the case for a recount.  The gap between the lowest Labour vote and the highest Conservative vote was just 70. The petition claims that at the count, which went on into the early hours of January 24th, 100 Conservatives block votes were wrongly placed in the Labour bundle and that the Conservative candidates should have been duly elected as the candidates with the highest number of votes.

Save Bridge Park hails a milestone legal victory as their case against Brent Council continues

http://bridgeparkcomplex.com/blog/

Save Bridge Park Community campaigners welcome a 'powerful decision' in their favour

From Bridge Park Community Council Steering Group

 

BRIDGE PARK COMMUNITY COUNCIL STEERING GROUP

PRESS RELEASE

SAVE BRIDGE PARK CAMPAIGN

Community campaigners welcome a powerful decision in their favour

Appeal Court agrees to hear Stonebridge Community Trust case for being allowed to make its Charitable Arguments:

On 30 July, Master Clarke accepted the local authority’s argument that as the Attorney General, Geoffrey Cox, MP, had not joined the proceedings, then the Charitable Trust argument had to be struck out from the defence.  That result would have dealt a blow to the community campaigners’ defence.

On 13^th September, leave to appeal the decision was refused by Master Clarke, so the community campaigners applied for permission to appeal this legal point to a higher Judge, resulting in this latest successful outcome. 

On 6^th November 2019, at the High Court Appeal Centre, the Honourable Mr. Justice Birss ruled that the community campaigners be granted permission to appeal the orders of 21^st March and 13^th September 2019.

At the Appeals Centre, the Honourable Mr. Justice Birss, explained that “…..the decision of the Attorney General not to join the proceedings does not prevent the community and those who represent them from maintaining a Charitable Trust argument.  He concluded by saying, “.the arguments put forward as grounds of appeal on behalf of the defendants have a real as opposed to fanciful prospect of success at trial. 

 ‘Community campaigners welcome TWO powerful decisions

 in their favour’.

1.    Feb 2020 – “Community Activist threatens Community’s Legal Defence”

In the Royal Courts of Justice on Thursday Feb 6, 2020 -

Patricia Grace Guthrie a local activist based in Camden, states that she teamed up with a Daniel Galimore and Nigel Goodison, as they thought that they could fight the Save Bridge Park campaign better than BPCC (who have blocked the sale for three years and fought and won the legal case at the first key test hearing February 2019).  Grace tried to persuade the High Court to let her join on behalf of her new team and she submitted privileged BPCC evidence and made erroneous statements in support.

Her legal arguments, were in effect against BPCC, so would have helped Brent to sell Bridge Park by attempting to remove our claim that

 *1.* HPCC were promised the Freehold (Estopple by convention), and;

 *2.* of there being a Charitable Trust by the actions and method of the purchase (in 1982) demonstrated by the protective GLC covenant which Brent removed.

Fortunately, The High Court agreed with our legal position (this without making any judgement on the merits of the main case in relation to Brent and ourselves, to be heard later this hear circa July 2020). The Judge threw Grace's arguments and case out (stating amongst other things.... that it had no basis in Law)! Brent won their costs against her. Whilst she was hostile towards BPCC/ HPCC we still persuaded our lawyers to show goodwill and not to apply for their entitled similar costs. So ONLY Brent Lawyers were awarded their costs £14,000 (within 28 days) against Patricia Grace Guthrie.

We have the full backing of the Cllrs, Lawyers, Press, Public and most importantly, our Community - proof backed up by their signed and written questionnaires also a petition.

www.bridgeparkcomplex.com/our-vision

Jay Mastin, Chair, Bridge Park Community Council Steering Group (BPCC) said

“This is a very powerful decision in favour of the community.  BPCC recognises the commitment from the community to support the Save Bridge Park campaign.  We also recognize our accountability to the community.  To that end, BPCC have produced the Chair’s Report covering the start of the campaign in June 2017 to date.  (see our website: www.bridgeparkcomplex.com).

The Current Position

We are pleased to report we have gone on to win our appeal hearing (attached) and will now go on to full Trial, with a window between July - Nov 2020. 

The Save Bridge Park campaign lost a decision in relation to the Attorney General and being able to continue our Charitable Trust arguments in our defence. We put in an application to the High Court to appeal that decision and the costs awarded A copy of the 29th April 2020 Judgement, Order and Attorney General's letter can be viewed on our website www.bridgeparkcomplex.com.

I trust you will agree our case is unique and maybe legally exceptional, please consider supporting in our favour www.bridgeparkcomplex.com/donations . Our appeal hearing was granted on 9th November 2019. This was the opening to a potentially landmark moment.    

 “This successful Appeal which was heard during the Covid-19outbreak in March 2020, is another big step in our steady fight to victory for the Community. No one believed in our arguments but we know the story, gathered our own evidence and slowly persuaded those in the know. Bridge Park Land & Complex is unique and is the largest project of its type in Europe. I feel our fight for justice may go on to create a legal precedent. Please see our story visit us on - www.bridgeparkcomplex.com”.

Jay Mastin, Chair, BPCC Steering Group and Director, Stonebridge Community Trust