Interim application in Chancery Division proceedings in which Arora, who have considerable land interests at London Heathrow Airport and wish to construct a 9 level multi storey car park there, contend that Heathrow Airport Ltd’s interpretation of Condition A85 of the Heathrow Terminal 5 planning permission – which HAL say means that new passenger car parking at Heathrow must be on HAL-owned land or land which HAL alone may notify to Hillingdon LBC (the local planning authority) as substituted land – is contrary to planning law and/or competition law (specifically Article 106 TFEU taken together with Article 4(3) TEU and/or Article 102 TFEU).
HAL applied to have the claim transferred to the Queen’s Bench Division on the basis that it was a more apt forum than the Chancery Division where Arora had commenced their claim. Arora submitted that, under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules and the Chancery Guide relating to competition claims, the case had to be heard in the Chancery Division, and that even if that was not right, the case for a transfer to the QBD had not been made out.
In an important judgment relating to the procedure for competition claims, Master Clark accepted Arora’s submissions and dismissed HAL’s claim.
Charles Banner QC appeared for Arora, instructed by CMS’s planning and competition departments.