Practice areas
Courts
Counsel most often instructed
Judgments by year
Cases later courts cite most
Cases Richard Buxton Solicitors acted in that later judgments cite most often.
| Date | Case | Cited by |
|---|---|---|
| 8 Sep 2017 |
[2017] EWCA Civ 1314 · Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Under Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, the 450-square-metre limit applies to the cumulative floor…
|
192 |
| 6 Dec 2017 |
[2017] UKSC 79 · Supreme Court
A local planning authority determining environmental impact assessment development must publish intelligible and adequate main reasons. The reasons must…
|
94 |
| 22 Feb 2011 |
[2011] EWCA Civ 157 · Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
A negative environmental impact assessment screening opinion must contain, or be accompanied by, sufficient information to show that adequate screening has…
|
60 |
| 26 Feb 2014 |
[2014] UKSC 13 · Supreme Court
Private nuisance by noise depends on whether the interference with the reasonable enjoyment of land is objectively unacceptable in its locality. A defendant’s…
|
53 |
| 25 Apr 2018 |
[2018] EWCA Civ 860 · Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
The jurisdiction to reopen a final appeal or refusal of permission under CPR 52.30 requires exceptional circumstances, real injustice and no alternative…
|
41 |
| 10 Oct 2008 |
[2008] EWCA Civ 1067 · Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
A judicial review claim must be filed both promptly and within three months. Filing within three months does not itself satisfy the separate requirement of…
|
30 |
| 9 Sep 2020 |
[2020] EWCA Civ 1179 · Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
A public authority must have due regard to the needs identified by the public sector equality duty. Generic mitigation measures do not themselves demonstrate…
|
30 |
| 18 Jan 2012 |
[2012] EWCA Civ 321 · Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
For environmental impact assessment scoping, the project is ordinarily the development for which authorisation is sought. A proposal does not become part of a…
|
28 |
| 27 Mar 2003 |
[2003] EWCA Civ 400 · Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
In an environmental impact assessment screening decision, the decision-maker must assess the whole proposed project, including remedial measures that form an…
|
26 |
| 19 Dec 2003 |
[2003] EWCA Civ 1860 · Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
For environmental impact assessment development, the relevant decision under regulation 3(2) is the written grant of planning permission, rather than the…
|
24 |
Recent cases
| Date | Case | Cited by |
|---|---|---|
| 2 Oct 2026 |
[2026] EWHC 2508 (Admin) · High Court: Administrative Court
This paper determination records a consent outcome, not a contested ruling on the validity of traffic regulation orders. The court quashed an order after the…
|
|
| 30 Sep 2026 |
[2026] EWHC 2493 (Admin) · High Court: Administrative Court
Where a local authority accepts that a consultation defect may have prejudiced a claimant’s ability to assess evidence and make representations, potentially…
|
|
| 20 Jul 2026 |
[2026] EWHC 1651 (Admin) · High Court: Administrative Court
Where the NPPF requires a Sequential Test, it must be undertaken before any Exception Test; mitigation cannot be used to bypass that sequence. A failure to…
|
|
| 2 Jul 2026 |
[2026] EWHC 1543 (Admin) · High Court: Administrative Court
An SPD may supply a material planning consideration, but its guidance is not part of the statutory development plan and does not create a presumption against…
|
|
| 15 May 2026 |
[2026] EWHC 1166 (Admin) · High Court: Administrative Court
Planning allocation policies must be interpreted by the court in their planning context and by reference to the development plan read as a whole. An allocation…
|
1 |
| 19 Mar 2026 |
[2026] EWHC 535 (Admin) · High Court: Administrative Court
A planning committee departing from a finely balanced officer recommendation must give intelligible reasons addressing the principal controversial issues.…
|
|
| 13 Mar 2026 |
[2026] EWCA Civ 264 · Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the court must make its own assessment of whether an injunction is appropriate to restrain a…
|
|
| 6 Mar 2026 |
[2026] EWHC 478 (Admin) · High Court: Administrative Court
Whether development is likely to have significant environmental effects is an evidence-based planning judgment. The threshold requires more than a bare…
|
|
| 12 Jan 2026 |
[2026] EWHC 26 (Admin) · High Court: Administrative Court
An experimental traffic order must identify a genuine experiment and explain its purpose. The statement of reasons must describe the nature of the experiment…
|
|
| 11 Nov 2025 |
[2025] EWHC 2937 (KB) · High Court: King's Bench Division
An injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is discretionary. The court must decide whether it is just and convenient, and…
|
|
| 2 Sep 2025 |
[2025] EWHC 2251 (Admin) · High Court: Administrative Court
Applicants seeking Aarhus costs protection must comply with the procedural timetable requiring the protection to be claimed at the outset and any challenge or…
|
|
| 1 Sep 2025 |
[2025] EWCA Civ 1134 · Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
For an interim planning injunction, the court must assess the balance of convenience in its statutory context and minimise the risk of injustice. A defendant’s…
|
1 |
Earlier names
These figures include judgments naming firms that have since merged into, or been renamed as, Richard Buxton Solicitors: Richard Buxton Environmental & Public Law.
Based on judgments published by The National Archives (Find Case Law) in which Richard Buxton Solicitors is named as solicitors, counted under the firm's current name. The figures are minimums: not every judgment names the solicitors, and a judgment is counted only when we are confident who acted. The selection of cases listed here is limited, and does not include family, criminal or anonymised cases. Firm details include data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority. zoomLaw is independent and not connected with Richard Buxton Solicitors. Something wrong or missing? Tell us. All law firms.