header-logo header-logo

26 March 2010
Issue: 7410 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Highways

R (on the application of Maroudas) v Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs [2010] EWCA Civ 280, [2010] All ER (D) 171 (Mar)

For purposes of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, s 67(3) an application had to strictly comply with para 1 of Sch 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. However, that did not mean that a valid application had to be contained in a single document. Minor departures from the requirements of para 1 did not invalidate an application. There were circumstances in which a valid application could be contained in the application form when read with another document.

For example, a valid application could be made where supplementary information was provided to make good an error or omission in the application, at any rate if the information was provided within a very short time of the submission of the application form. It was not necessary to define the limits of permissible departures from the strict requirements Sch 14, para 1.
 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll