Resources

CG Fry & Son Ltd has won their Supreme Court Appeal – appropriate assessment of a development’s effect on Ramsar sites is not required at discharge of conditions stage.The Court has unanimously allowed CG Fry’s appeal, reversing the decisions of the courts below which had upheld an Inspector’s decision to dismiss CG Fry’s s.78 planning appeal against Somerset Council’s non-determination of applications to discharge pre-commencement conditions on the reserved matters approval for Phase 3 of their Jurston Farm development. The Council had declined to discharge the conditions on the basis that:An appropriate assessment of the impact of the development on the Somerset Levels Ramsar, as a result of phosphate pollution from waste water, was required and (following advice from Natural England) adverse effects on the integrity of the Ramsar could not be ruled out in the absence of a nutrient neutrality scheme which was not at the time available; andThe effect of Regulation 63 of the Habitats Regulations, as applied to Ramsar sites by the NPPF (paragraph 194 of which says Ramsar sites “should be give the same protection as habitats sites”) was that the conditions could not be…

James Frampton (instructed by Andrew Crawford on a licenced access basis) acted for the defendant (‘Gypcraft’) in this Part 8 claim in which judgment was handed down on 8 October 2025. The claimant (‘VCL’) sought declarations in relation to the proper construction of a contract payment mechanism used by the parties under their subcontract dated 12 November 2020 (‘the Sub-Contract’). Gypcraft resisted the grant of these declarations. The Part 8 claim followed an adjudication in which the adjudicator had decided that VCL had failed to issue a valid payment notice, meaning Gypcraft was entitled to the sums sought in its Payment Application 23 as a notified sum.Adrian Williamson KC, sitting as Deputy Judge of the High Court, held that VCL was not entitled to the Part 8 declarations it sought. There were 3 issues:Firstly, VCL argued principally that a Payment Schedule agreed during the works did not fit with the provisions of clause 4 of the JCT conditions because the payment schedule did not specify an “Interim Valuation Date” which was required under clause 4. VCL’s case, therefore, was that the Sub-Contract did not contain an adequate mechanism for payment and was replaced by the…

The High Court has ruled in favour of the Ministry of Defence (MoD), allowing it to proceed with awarding a multimillion-pound contract for global medical support to Healix International, despite legal objections from the incumbent provider, International SOS Assistance UK.