-
[align=left]
Bellefield Computer Services Ltd & Ors v E Turner & Sons Ltd, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 28, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 284
21
Case No: QBENI 99/0891 1996 B No 2222
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HON. MR. JUSTICE BELL
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Friday, 28 January 2000
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE SCHIEMANN
LORD JUSTICE TUCKEY
and
MR. JUSTICE WALL
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
--------------------
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2HD
Tel No: 0171 421 4040 0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JEREMY STUART-SMITH Q.C. & DORE GREEN (instructed by Messrs Berrymans Lace Mawer for the Appellants)
TIMOTHY STOW Q.C. & FREYA NEWBERY (instructed by Messrs Kennedys for the Respondents)
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Friday, 28 January 2000
Judgment
LORD JUSTICE SCHIEMANN:
This appeal by the fourth claimant from Bell, J. is in respect of his ruling on preliminary issues of law on assumed facts set out in the papers. All the other claimants had already abandoned their claims before the hearing in front of Bell, J.. The significant assumed facts are these. Between 1981 and 1983 the Defendant Building Contractors ("the builders"), pursuant to a contract with one of the other claimants ("the original owners") constructed a steel portal frame building which was intended to be used as a dairy including a processing and bottling factory, offices, laboratories and a storage area. In 1989 the original owners of the dairy sold it to the appellants ("the subsequent owners"). In 1995 a fire broke out in the storage area. It spread from the storage area to the rest of the dairy and caused much damage. The Builders, had they followed good building practice and the requirements of the Building Regulations, would have constructed, between the storage area and the rest of the building, a compartment wall which would have prevented the spread of the fire from the storage area to the rest of the building. Although a wall was constructed in the right place, along what one of the plans to which the builders were supposed to be working described as Gridline 2, the fire passed over the top of the wall. This it would not have done had the wall been constructed in accordance with good building practice.
The subsequent owners sued the builders in negligence alleging that they had suffered damage under 6 heads (A) Repairs and cleaning to buildings (other than the area in which the fire started); provision of temporary car-park and access ; professional fees...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Buckland & Ors v Secretary Of State For Environment Transport & Regions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 11, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 279
Case No CO/1682/1998
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(Crown Office)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
Tuesday, 11 January 2000
Before:
MR JUSTICE KAY
NORMAN CHARLES BUCKLAND
And
patricia joan buckland
AND
DAVID HUBERT CAPEL
-V-
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2HD
Tel No: 0171 421 4040 0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr George Laurence QC (instructed by Thrings & Long) appeared on behalf of the Applicants.
Mr John Hobson (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Tuesday, 11 January 2000
JUDGMENT
Mr Justice Kay:
This is an application brought by the applicants under paragraph 12 of Schedule 15 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 ("the 1981 Act") against the decision of the Secretary of State acting by his Inspector dated 8 January 1998 by which he confirmed the County Council of Avon Definitive Map and Statement Modification Order No 1. 1994 with modifications.
Factual background to the application
The route in question runs between the villages of Winscombe and Barton and is known for a part of the route as Barton Drove. Prior to the modification with which the case is concerned it has always been shown on the definitive map as two footpaths.
The Modification Order made pursuant to section 53 of the 1981 Act purports to show those paths as upgraded to bridleways. Objections were raised to the order and as a result an inquiry under paragraph 7 of Schedule 15 to the 1981 Act was held. Following that inquiry, the Inspector concluded that the documentary evidence supported vehicular highway rights and in consequence, by paragraph 70 of his first decision letter dated 18 April 1997 indicated that the Secretary of State ...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Cantrell (t/a Foxear Lodge Nursing Home) v Customs & Excise, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 28, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 283
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Friday, 28th January 2000
B e f o r e
MR JUSTICE LIGHTMAN
BETWEEN:
BRIAN CANTRELL AND EILEEN CANTRELL
trading as FOXEARTH LODGE NURSING HOME
Appellants
and
THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
Respondents
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2HD
Tel No: 0171 421 4040 0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
_________
Mr Jonathan Peacock (Instructed by Messrs Mills & Reeve Francis House, 112 Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 1PH) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
Mr Rupert Baldry (Instructed by the Solicitor of Customs and Excise, New King's Beam House, 22 Upper Ground, London SE1 9PJ) appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
---_______
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Friday, 28 January 2000
JUDGMENT
MR JUSTICE LIGHTMAN:
INTRODUCTION 1. This is an appeal under Section 11 of the Tribunal and Inquiries Act 1...
[/align]
-
HM Attorney General v Ebert, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 31, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 286
34
Case no: CO/4506/98
IN THE high court of justice
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
(DIVISIONAL COURT)
Royal Courts of justice
Strand, London, wc2a 2ll
Friday, 7th July, 2000
Before:
LORD JUSTICE LAWS
MR JUSTICE SILBER
-------------------
HM ATTORNEY GENERAL
-v-
EBERT
____________________
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
____________________
MR JAY QC and MS AYLING (instructed by the Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
THE RESPONDENT APPEARED IN PERSON
____________________
J U D G M E N T
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
LAWS LJ:
Introduction
1 HM Attorney General applies to this court for a civil proceedings order to be made against the respondent Gedaljhu Ebert pursuant to s.42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, whose provisions material to the issues in this case are as follows:
"(1) If, on an application made by the Attorney General under this section, the High Court is satisfied that any person has habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground -
(a) instituted vexatious civil proceedings, whether in the High Court or any inferior court, and whether against the same person or against different persons; or
(b) made vexatious applications in any civil proceedings, whether in the High Court or any inferior court, and whether instituted by him or another...
the court may, after hearing that person or giving him an opportunity to be heard, make a civil proceedings order...
(1A) In this section -
`civil proceedings order' means an order that -
(a) no civil proceedings shall without the leave of the High Court be instituted in any court by the person against whom the order is made;
(b) any civil proceedings instituted by him in any court before the making of the order shall not be continued by him without the leave of the High Court; and
(c) no application (other than one for leave under this section) shall be made by him, in any civil proceedings instituted in any court by any person, without the leave of the High Court...
(2) An order under subsection (1) may provide that it is to cease to have effect at the end of a specified period, but shall otherwise remain in force indefinitely.
(3) Leave for the institution or continuance of, or for the making of an application in, any civil proceedings by a person who is the subject of an order for the time being in force under subsection (1) shall not be given unless the High Court is satisfied that the proceedings or application are not an abuse of the process of the court in question and that there are reasonable grounds for the proceedings or application.
...
(4) No appeal shall lie from a decision of the High Court refusing leave required by this section..."
Before us the Attorney was represented by Mr Robert Jay QC. Mr Ebert appeared on his own behalf.
Background
2 The background to the case, as was said by Mr Glendinning of the Treasury Solicitor's Department who swore an affidavit in support of the Attorney's application, "is undeniably of some considerable complexity". It has had to be described in many judgments of the courts already given; as for example in the recent judgment of Simon Brown LJ in this court, which for reasons I shall explain in due course adjourned the application on 31 January 2000; and in the judgment of Laddie J sitting with Neuberger J on 6 March 2000. It is however our duty, now that the application falls to be finally determined, to set out the history again. In the account which follows I have drawn, as did Simon Brown LJ, on Mr Glendinning's succinct narrative.
3 In the late 1980s Mr Ebert embarked upon an enterprise in property development along with a Mr Morris Wolff. It was done through a company of which the two of them were in substance the owners: Europride Ltd. Mr Ebert was the day-to-day manager of the property portfolio. Mr Wolff's task was to arrange the finance. With the benefit of considerable facilities obtained through the offices of a number of banks (including Bank Leumi and Midland Bank plc), Europride acquired a substantial portfolio, amounting to something like 220 properties. The banks, of course, took security for what they advanced, and did so in a number of forms. Midland Bank had joint and several personal guarantees from Mr Eb...
-
[align=left]
Chaudhry, R (on the application of) v Special Adjudicator & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 26, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 62
1
Neutral Citation Number: [2001] EWHC Admin 62
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CO 2888/00
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(ADMINISTRATIVE COURT)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Friday 26th January 2000
B e f o r e:
MR JUSTICE OUSELEY
- - - - - - -
ON THE APPLICATION OF CHAUDHRY
-v-
SPECIAL ADJUDICATOR
and
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
- - - - - -
(Computer-aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Telephone No: 020 7421 4063/020 7404 1400
Fax No: 0171-831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - -
MISS P CHANDRAN (instructed by Chhokar & Co, WC2A 2LL) appeared on behalf of the Claimant.
MR S KOVATS (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor London SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the Defendant.
- - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
(As approved)
Crown Copyright
JUDGMENT
MR JUSTICE OUSELEY:
Introduction:
1. Mr Chaudhry, the claimant, an Indian national, challenges by way of judicial review a decision given by the Special Adjudicator on 5th July 2000. By that decision she dismissed the claimant's appeal from the refusal of his asylum claim by the Secretary of State for the Home Department given on 11th February 2000. The Secretary of State also certified the claim under paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 2 to the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, as amended, because India is designated as a country in which, in general, there is no serious risk of persecution. He also refused the claimant leave to enter the United Kingdom.
2. The claimant sought asyl...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Mark Wilkinson Furniture Ltd v Construction Industry Training Board, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 12, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 280
12
CO/1318/00
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
B e f o r e
THE HON MR JUSTICE NEWMAN
BETWEEN
MARK WILKINSON FURNITURE LIMITED
Appellant
and
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY TRAINING BOARD
Respondent
------------------------------------------
D W Mayall instructed by Rosenblatt, Solicitors for the Appellant
Mark Shaw instructed by CMS Cameron McKenna, Solicitors for the Respondent
-----------------------------------------
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
-----------------------------------------
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Newman 1. The appellant company, Mark Wilkinson Furniture Limited, are very well known as designers, manufacturers and installers of fitted units for kitchens and bathrooms. The company regards its activities as being in the area of the design and manufacture of furniture. Its business activity is predominantly, but not exclusively, the manufacture of fitted units for bathrooms and kitchens and the company installs the fitted units. There is no doubt that the company is regarded as a furniture maker. It has the Guild Mark of the Worshipful Company of Furniture Makers of the City of London. It belongs to the British Furniture Manufacturing Association. Its brochure puts emphasis on the originality of its design of furniture. Notwithstanding such private and public perceptions of its activities, the respondent Board concluded that the activities of the company were such as made it liable for assessment to levy under the Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order l999, Statutory instrument (S.I) No 159. In short, the Board concluded that the company's activities fell within the scope of the construction industry as defined in the relevant sub...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Hassani-Kazhadeh, R (on the application of) v Housing Benefit Review Board Of The London Borough Of Camden, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 31, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 378
Case No: CO/2369/99
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 26th July 2000
B e f o r e :
MRS JUSTICE SMITH
- - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - -
Mr N McInnes appeared on behalf of the Applicant
Miss J Richards appeared on behalf of the Respondent
- - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Mrs Justice Smith:
1. This is an application for the judicial review of two decisions of the Housing Benefit Review Board of the Camden Borough Council (the Review Board) taken on 27th April 1998 and 21st October 1998 under the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987. The applicant is an elderly man who lived in and received Housing Benefit for his Council flat in Camden. Following his admission to hospital in September 1996 and his subsequent convalescence in 1997 at the home of his former wife, Camden decided that he was no longer entitled to receive housing benefit for his flat. His family has fought to retain it on his behalf. The fight has gone many rounds. Before setti...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Singh, R (on the application of) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 26, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 376
10
Case No: CO/488/2000
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
QUEEN'S BECH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 26th July 2000
B e f o r e :
MRS JUSTICE SMITH
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Immigration Appeal Tribunal
ex parte
Parvitter Singh
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Miss Chapman Appeared on behalf of the Applicant
Mr A Underwood Appeared on behalf of the Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Mrs Justice Smith:
In this asylum case, the applicant Paviter Singh, who is an Indian national, seeks judicial review of the decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (IAT) on 13th November 1999 when it refused leave to appeal against a decision of a Special Adjudicator dated 7th October 1999. The Special Adjudicator found that the applicant who is a Punjabi Sikh had a well-founded fear of persecution in the Punjab. However, he considered that it would not be unreasonable or unduly harsh for him to relocate elsewhere in India and rejected the his appeal from the Secretary of State's decision to refuse him refugee status.
Article 33(1) of the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (the Convention) provides: No contracting state shall expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territorie...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Lashley, R (on the application of) v Broad District Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 16, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 358
1
Case no: co/5011/1999
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
CROWM OFFICE
Royal Courts of justice
Strand, London, wc2a 2ll
Friday 16 June 2000
Before:
his hon MR JUSTICE Munby
-------------------
THE QUEEN
V
BROAD DISTRICT COUNCIL
EX PARTE BARBARA JUNE LASHLEY
____________________
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2HD
Tel No: 0171 421 4040 0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
____________________
mr GAVIN MILLAR q.c. (INSTRUCTED BY MESSRS sTEEL & sHAMASH) Appeared on behalf of the applicant
Mr christopher baker (Instructed by messrs eversheds) Appeared on behalf of the Respondent
____________________
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE MUNBY Friday 16th June 2000
In this application, Mr Gavin Millar QC moves on behalf of the applicant, Barbara June Lashley, for judicial review of a decision of the Standards Committee ("the Committee") of Broadland District Council ("the Council") on 6 December 1999 that her conduct on or about May 1999 (sic) fell short of the highest standards expected of Councillors. The relief sought is
"1 Declarations that
(1) as at 6 December 1999 the Committee was not discharging a statutory function of the Council within the meaning of section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 ("the 1972 Act") and was not therefore a lawfully constituted committee of the Council and/or
(2) there was procedural impropriety in the making of the decision
in consequence of which the decision was null and void.
2 Certiorari to quash the decision."
The application is resisted by Mr Christopher Baker of counsel appearing on behalf of the Council.
I am grateful to Mr Millar and Mr Baker for their careful and helpful arguments in a case which raises an interesting and, as it seems to me, important point on which there is surprisingly little direct authority.
THE FACTS
The applicant has been an elected member of the Council since 1995. She is and was at all material times the leader of the minority Labour group on the Council. John Bryant ("Mr Bryant") was at all material times the Chief Executive of the Council and in this capacity acted as the Head of the Paid Service and Monitoring Officer. Two other officers played an important part in events: Trevor Johnson ("Mr Johnson"), the Corporate Services Manager, and Stephen Fennell ("Mr Fennell"), the Personnel and Central Services Manager. I should also mention Martin Thrower ("Mr Thrower"), who as I understand it worked in Mr Johnson's department, and Jennifer Harman ("Miss Harman"), who was Mr Bryant's personal assistant
In February 1999 the Council set up the Committee as a full standing committee of the Council, though at this stage the Committee was only empowered to make "recommendations" to the Council following investigations into allegations of misconduct by Councillors.
On 6 May 1999, which was a Thursday, elections to the Council took place. The result was such that if the Conservative group was to retain control of the Council following the elections, and so avoid a hung council, a former member of that group, Councillor Procter, who had been returned as a member in the elections had to be restored to membership of the group. During the Friday, 7 May, there was doubt about whether this would happen. According to the applicant, Mr Bryant instructed Mr Johnson to delay the calculation and notification of the statutory committee allocations for the Council, in order to give the Conservative group more time to resolve the question of Councillor Procter's membership of the group.
At the close of business on the Friday Mr Johnson telephoned the applicant to inform her that the committee allocations were not yet available. The applicant took the view that she needed the allocations so as to be able to report to a meeting of her newly elected Labour group that evening and she accordingly pressed Mr Johnson for an ...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Philcox, R (on the application of) v Epping Forest District Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 13, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 325
- 1 -
Case No: CO 3331/98
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Thursday 13th April 2000
B e f o r e :
THE HON MR JUSTICE HOOPER
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street London EC4A 2HD
[/align]