R (on the application of Dost Mohammed) v Secretary of State for Defence [2007] HWCA 983

Elizabeth Susan Pascoe v the First Secretary of State [2006] EWHC 2356 (Admin)

R (on the application of Dost Mohammed) v Secretary of State for Defence [2006] EWHC 2098 (Admin)

R (on the application of Gentle & Others) v (1) The Prime Minister (2) The Secretary of State for Defence (3) The Attorney General [2006] EWCA Civ 1078

The Queen on the application of Singh v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2006] EWCA Civ 1118

R (Boughton & others) v HM Treasury [2006] EWCA Civ 504

R (on the application of Hilal Abdul-Razzaq Ali Al-Jedda) v the Secretary of State For Defence [2006] EWCA Civ 327

R (on the application of Mazin Mumaa Galteh Al-Skeini and others) v the Secretary of State for Defence [2005] EWCA Civ 1609

Hereford Waste Watchers Limited v Hereford Council [2005] EWHC 191 (Admin)

John Blewett v Derbyshire Waste Limited [2004] EWCA Civ 1508

R (on the application of Purja and others) v Ministry of Defence [2003] All ER (D) 307 (Feb), (2003) Times, 10 March

R (on the application of Jones) v Mansfield District Council [2003] EWHC 07 (Admin), [2003] All ER (D) 197 (Jan)

R (on the application of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) v Prime Minister and others [2002] EWHC 2777 (Admin), [2002] All ER (D) 245 (Dec), (2002) Times, 27 December

R (Gurung and others) v Ministry of Defence [2002] EWHC 2463 (Admin), [2002] All ER (D) 409 (Nov), (2002) Times, 28 December

R v Hampshire CC, ex parte Vetterlein [2001] All ER (D) 146 (Jun)

R v Environment Agency, ex parte Marchiori [2001] EWCA Civ 03, [2002] All ER (D) 220 (Jan), (2002) Independent, 31 January, CA

R v Environment Agency, ex parte Marchiori [2001] All ER (D) 345, (2001) Times, 1 May, QBD

R v Daventry DC, ex parte Thornby Farms [2002] 3 WLR 875, [2002] JPL 937 [2002] 05 EG 132 (CS), (2002) Times, 1 February [2002] All ER (D) 149 (Jan), CA

R v Daventry DC, ex parte Thornby Farms [2000] All ER (D) 1102, (2000) Times, 5 October, [2001] EHLR 94

R v Derbyshire CC, ex parte Murray, No. 5 [2002] 05 EG 131 (CS) 131

R v Derbyshire CC, ex parte Murray, No. 4 [2000] All ER (D) 1300, (2000) Times, 8 November, QBD

R v North Warwicksire CC, ex parte Howe and Jones [2001] All ER (D) 16 (Mar)

R v Leicestershire CC, ex parte Blackfordby and Boothorpe Action Group [2000] JPL 1266

R v Environment Agency, ex parte Turnbull (2000) Env LR 715

R v The Environment Agency ex parte Sellers and Another [1999] Env LR 73-113

R v The Environment Agency and Redland Aggregates Ltd ex parte Leam

R v The Environment Agency and Redland Aggregates Ltd ex parte Gibson

Lubrizol Limited v Tyndallwoods, Solicitors (1998) The Lawyer, 24 April 1998, QBD

R v Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Kirkman (1998) Env LR 719, [1998] JPL 787, CA

R v Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Kirkman (1998) ENDS 276, (1998) Env LR 560, QBD

R v Derbyshire County Council ex parte Woods (1997) JPL 958, (1998) Env LR 277, CA

R v North Somerset District Council and Pioneer Aggregates (UK) Limited ex parte Garnett and Pierssene (1997) JPL 1015, QBD

R v Somerset County Council and ARC Southern Limited ex parte Richard Dixon (1997) JPL 1030, [1997] C.O.D 227, QBD

R v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Brown [1997] Env LR 100, (1997) JPL 337, QBD

R (Mortell) v Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council

Two individual members of the Derker Community Action Group have succeeded in a judicial review of the planning permissions granted by Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council allowing the demolition of their homes as well as those of 257 individuals and families in the Derker ward of Oldham.

The Council proposes to demolish their houses to make way for new houses under the Government-sponsored Pathfinder scheme. It has promoted the Oldham (Derker Area Phase 1 Regeneration) Compulsory Purchase Order 2005 in order to force them to leave their homes.

However, it granted planning permission for the proposed demolitions and developments without carrying out an Environmental Impact Assessment, a requirement under the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive for certain types of development.

It is the residents' case that an Environmental Impact Assessment was required. In particular, the Council should have taken into account:

i. The cumulative effects of each development when combined together and with the other proposed developments.
ii. The energy, natural resource and pollution implications of the construction of the project.
iii. The contaminated nature of some of the land in the Derker area likely to be affected by the project.
iv. The damage to the architectural heritage of Derker.
v. The fact that, as the development was in outline, there was no basis for judging what the relative impact of the existing and proposed end uses were.

Sir Michael Harrison ordered on 30 March 2007 that the planning permissions be quashed.

The number of objections to the Council's plans has meant that a public inquiry was held between 6th February and 3rd April 2007 to decide whether the Order should be confirmed. Amongst the issues that were raised at the inquiry was the invalidity of the planning permissions and the failure to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment.

The Derker Community Action Group has chosen PIL to help them in their battle against the Pathfinder initiative. They were represented by Robert McCracken QC of Francis Taylor Buildings at the inquiry.