Share it

In the continuing absence of any public record of the Supreme Court’s permission decisions, we continue to rely on information provided by third parties for what is undoubtedly an incomplete record.   Three decisions have been drawn to our attention.  We are, unfortunately, unable to give the dates of these decisions although we believe that they have all been given within the past week.  

First, permission has been granted in the case of Sainsburys Supermarkets v Wolverhampton City Council [2009] EWCA Civ 835.  The case concerns rival redevelopment proposals from Sainsburys and Tesco for a site in the centre of Wolverhampton. The local authority decided to exercise its compulsory purchase powers to facilitate the Tesco scheme (pictured right, see also), by buying the land owned by Sainsbury.   Elias J dismissed Sainsburys application for judicial review of that decision and he was upheld by the Court of Appeal on different grounds.  The ICLR summary of the decision can be found here. The decision is reported in the local press, here. 

 It appears that permission to appeal has been refused in two cases.  First, the Supreme Court has refused the application for permission to appeal by the claimants in the case of Bookmakers Afternoon Greyhound Services v Amalgamated Racing Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 750.  The Court of Appeal had upheld Morgan J’s decision that the first defendant had not acquired its horse racing media rights in contravention of competition law.  The decision is helpfully summarised by the ICLR here.  Monckton Chambers have provided a useful case note on the first instance decision here.

We would like to thank Mr Benjamin Pell for drawing these decisions to our attention

Second, it has been reported that the Supreme Court has refused permission to appeal in the patent case of Generics (UK) Ltd v Daiichi Pharmaceuticals [2009] EWCA Civ 646.  This was an application by Generics (which has recently changed its name to Mylan) to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal (upholding Kitchin J) that that Daiichi’s by then expired patent antibacterial levofloxacin and the supplementary protection certificate based on were valid. 

We also draw attention to two cases in which the press have reported that applications for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court are being lodged.  The claimant in the case of Boggis v Natural England [2009] EWCA Civ 1061 has announced that he is seeking the permission of the Supreme Court to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing his challenge to the designation of  an area of the Suffolk coast including his home as a Site of Special Scientific Interest.  The purpose of the proceedings was to enable the claimant to continue replenishing his own “sacrificial sea defences”, for which he had not obtained plannning permission.  He has been described as “Suffolk’s King Canute”.   

It has also been reported that the claimant in the case of Scopelight v Chief Constable of Northumbria [2009] EWCA Civ 1156 is seeking permission to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal that the police were entitled retain hardware and financial records after the Crown Prosecution Service had declined to pursue a public prosecution when the Federation Against Copyright Theft, a private body, was considering a prosecution.