England and Wales High Court of Justice

[align=left]
Year 1993






R v Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration ex p. Dyer, Court off Appeal - Administrative Court, October 19, 1993, [1993] EWHC Admin 3


CO-0651-9
BAILII Citation Number: [1993] EWHC QB 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(DIVISIONAL COURT)

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London W2

Date: Tuesday, 19th October 1993

B e f o r e:

LORD JUSTICE SIMON BROWN


-and-

MR JUSTICE BUCKLEY

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

R E G I N A

-v-

THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION
EX PARTE MONICA DYER

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph notes of John Larking
Verbatim Reporters, Chancery House, Chancery Lane, London WC2
Telephone No: 071 404 7464 071 404 7464
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR S RICHARDS (Instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
THE APPLICANT appeared in Person.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGMENT
Tuesday, 19th October 1993 Lord Justice Simon Brown: This is an application by Miss Monica Dyer for judicial review of a decision of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (hereafter the PCA) dated 20th December 1991 not to re-open his investigation into her complaints against the Department of Social Security. Those complaints were many and various with regard to ...


[/align]

[align=left]
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p. Bentley, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 07, 1993, [1993] EWHC Admin 2


CO/2912/92
BAILII Citation Number: [1993] EWHC QB 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(DIVISIONAL COURT)
Royal Courts of Justice

Date: Wednesday, 7th July 1993.
Before:
LORD JUSTICE WATKINS
and
LORD JUSTICE NEILL
and
MR JUSTICE TUCKEY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crown Office List
THE QUEEN v
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Ex parte IRIS PAMALA BENTLEY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of John Larking, Chancery House, Chancery Lane, London WC2
Telephone No: 071 404 7464 071 404 7464
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MR D PANNICK Q.C. and MR M SHAW (instructed by Messrs B M Birnberg & Co., London, SE1) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
MR S RICHARDS and MR R SINGH (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
LORD JUSTICE WATKINS: This is the judgment of the Court.
Iris Pamala Bentley, the applicant for judicial review, has been campaigning for almost 4O years to obtain recognition of what she and many other people regard as a gross miscarriage of justice in the case of her brother, Derek Bentley. She wants that recognition to take the form of a posthumous Free Pardon for him. That, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, the Secretary of State for the Home Department (the Home Secretary), by a decision which was announced on l October l992, declined to recommend.
That is the decision which we have been asked by the applicant to review. The relief which she seeks, and for which she has the leave of this Court to apply, is a declaration that the Home Secretary erred in law in declining to recommend a posthumous Free Pardon for Derek Bentley and mandamus to require the Home Secretary to reconsider the matter. Bentley, then l9 years of age, was convicted, together with Christopher Craig, at the Central Criminal Court on ll December l952 before Lord Goddard, Chief Justice, of the murder of Police Constable Sidney George Miles at C...
[/align]

[align=left]
R. v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex p. Rees-Mogg, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 30, 1993, [1993] EWHC Admin 4


No: CO 2040 93
BAILII Citation Number: [1993] EWHC QB 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(DIVISIONAL COURT)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2

Date: Friday, 30th July 1993
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE LLOYD
LORD JUSTICE MANN
and
MR JUSTICE AULD
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CROWN OFFICE LIST
R E G I N A
v
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
EX PARTE LORD REES MOGG
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of John Larking, Chancery House, Chancery Lane, London WC2 Telephone No: 071 404 7464 071 404 7464
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MR D PANNICK QC, MR K LINDBLOM, MR R THOMPSON and MR J CALLMAN (instructed by Gouldens, London EC4) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
MR S KENTRIDGE QC, MR S RICHARDS and MR D ANDERSON (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Friday, 30th July 1993 LORD JUSTICE LLOYD: The applicant in these proceedings, the Rt. Hon. Lord Rees Mogg, seeks inter alia a declaration that the United Kingdom may not lawfully ratify the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7th February 1992. Mr Pannick QC advances three main arguments on his behalf. First, by ratifying the Protocol on Social Policy the Government of the United Kingdom would be in breach of section 6 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978. Secondly, by ratifying the Protocol, the Government would be altering the content of Community Law, without Parliamentary approval. Thirdly, by ratifying Title V of the Treaty, the Government would be transferring part of the Royal Prerogative to community institutions withou...
[/align]

[align=left]
Universities Funding Council ex p. The Institute of Dental Surgery, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 30, 1993, [1993] EWHC Admin 5


No: CO 423 93
BAILII Citation Number: [1993] EWHC QB 5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(DIVISIONAL COURT)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2

Date: Friday, 30th July 1993
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE MANN
and
MR JUSTICE SEDLEY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CROWN OFFICE LIST
R E G I N A
v
THE UNIVERSITIES FUNDING COUNCIL
EX PARTE THE INSTITUTE OF DENTAL SURGERY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of John Larking, Chancery House, Chancery Lane, London WC2 Telephone No: 071 404 7464 071 404 7464
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MR D PANNICK QC and MR J HERBERG (instructed by Church Adams, Tatham & Co., Fulwood House, Fulwood Place, London WC1V 6HR) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
MR M BELOFF QC and MISS C BOOTH (instructed by Beachcroft Stanleys, 20 Furnival Street, London EC4A 1BN) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Friday, 30th July 1993
LORD JUSTICE MANN: I am sorry you have been kept waiting a few moments. I will ask Mr Justice Sedley to give the judgment of the Court.
MR JUSTICE SEDLEY: This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Universities Funding Council as it then was, published on the 17th December 1992, to place the Institute of Dental Surgery, the applicant, at level 2 in its assessment of the quality of institutional research. The decision has direct implications for the level of government funding and indirect implications for the level of outside funding which the Institute can expect in the year 1993/4. Brooke J gave leave on the 3rd March 1993 to apply, with expedition, for a declaration that the respondent Council had erred in law in its assessment of the applicant Institute; certiorari to quash the decision, and mandamus to require the successor body, the Higher Education Funding Council, to reconsider the matter.
The applicant Institute is a college of the University of London. Uniquely in the United Kingdom, it is entirely dedicated to postgraduate teaching and research in dentistry. The Universities Funding Council (UFC) was established by section 131 of the Education Reform Act 1988. It was established as a body corporate consisting of fifteen members appointed by the Secretary of State, six of them being engaged and experienced in higher education. By sub section (4) the Council was made responsible for administering central funds made available to it for the support of eligible activities, these being defined by sub section (5) as including the provision of education and the undertaking of research by universities. Sub section (6) gave the Council power to make grants for the prescribed purposes to the governing bodies of universities. Sub section (7) provides:
"In exercising their functions in relation to the provision of financial support for activities eligible for funding under this section, the Council shall have regard to the desirability of not discouraging any university in respect of which grants are made under sub section (6) above from maintaining or developing its funding from other sources."
Sub section (9) places an obligation on the governing body of any university to give the Council such information as it requires for the foregoing purpos...
[/align]

[align=left]
R v Secretary of State for Transport ex p. Richmond upon Thames LBC & Ors (No.1), Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, September 29, 1993, [1993] EWHC Admin 1


CO/2110/93
BAILII Citation Number: [1993] EWHC QB 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST

Royal Courts of Justice,
The Strand,
London. WC2.


Date:29 September 1993


Before:

MR. JUSTICE LAWS

- - - - - - - - - - --


R E G I N A


- V -


THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT

Ex Parte

(1) THE COUNCIL OF THE LONDON
BOROUGH OF RICHMOND UPON THAMES
(2) THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD
(3) TANDRIDGE DISTRICT COUNCIL
(4) THE LONDON BOROUGH OF HILLINGDON
(5) SLOUGH BOROUGH COUNCIL


- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -
(Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
John Larking, Chancery House, 53/64 Chancery Lane, London WC2
Telephone No. 071 404 7464 071 404 7464
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - ---

MR. RICHARD GORDON (Instructed by Richard Buxton, Cambridge) appeared on behalf of the Applicants.

MR. I. BURNETT and MR MARK SHAW (Instructed by the Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.


- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - --

JUDGMENT




Wednesday 29th September 1993

JUDGMENT
MR. JUSTICE LAWS: On 6th July 1993 the Secretary of State for Transport announced his intention to introduce in October 1993 what is described in his press notice as "A tough new quota system of night flying restrictions to reduce noise at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted". The decision to introduce these measures is the subject of the judicial review now before me. Sedley J gave leave on 30th July 1993. The applicants are a number of local authorities for the areas around each airport. They say that their constituents, or inhabitants, will be adversely affected by the new regime if it comes into force. The respondent is of course the Secretary of State.
Restrictions against night movements by aircraft at Heathrow have been in effect since 1962. Most recently a set of measures was introduced in 1988 which covered both Heathrow and Gatwick. Although, as I understand it, it has been updated from time to time, the regime of 1988 at present remains in force, but it is due to expire in October 1993, and it is the respondent's intention to substitute his new measures (which will for the first time impose restrictions at Stansted) with effect from 24th of that month. Put simply, the existing means of control involves a direct limitation upon the number of take-off and landing movements permitted at night. Shorn of certain detailed qualifications which do not matter for present purposes, the number of such movements presently allowed at Heathrow is 5,750 per year. The Secretary of State's new proposals, however, take a different form. At this stage I shall give only a crude description; it will be necessary to refine it later. A Quota count (QC) is to be assigned to each aircraft type. Each QC consists of a number of units from 0.5 to 16. In simple terms, the higher the QC, the noisier the aircraft. A given number of quota points will be assigned to each airport (12,000 in the case of Heathrow: 7000 for the summer season, 5000 for the winter). Aircraft movements which would produce any excess over the quota limit will be prohibited. The difference between the old system and the new system is therefore this: whereas at present, night flying restrictions are achieved by reference to an express specification of the number of the individual aircraft movements permitted, hereafter it will be done by reference to the permitted maximum number of quota points, and this means that within the ceiling defined by the maximum quotas, the aircraft operators will be free to choose how the quota is to be distributed between noisier and less noisy aircraft; they may operate a gr
[/align]...

[align=left]
Year 1994
R v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ex p. The World Development Movement Ltd, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 10, 1994, [1995] 1 All ER 611,[1995] COD 211,[1994] EWHC Admin 1,[1995] 1 WLR 386


CO1455/94
BAILII Citation Number: [1994] EWHC QB 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(DIVISIONAL COURT)
Royal Courts of Justice Strand
London WC2

Date: Thursday, 10th November 1994

B e f o r e:
LORD JUSTICE ROSE
and
MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - REGINA
v
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EX PARTE THE WORLD DEVELOPMENT MOVEMENT LIMITED
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (Computer aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of John Larking, Chancery House, Chancery Lane, London WC2
Telephone No: 071 404 7464 071 404 7464
Fax No: 071 404 7443
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MR N PLEMING QC and MR O DAVIES (Instructed by Bindman & Partners, London NW1 2SA) appeared on behalf of the Applicants.
MR S RICHARDS (Instructed by the Treasury Solicitor, London SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Thursday, 10th November 1994.

LORD JUSTICE ROSE: There is before the court an application by the World Development Movement Ltd for judicial review of two decisions of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in relation to aid to fund the Pergau Dam in Malaysia. The initial decision to grant aid was made on or shortly before 8th July 1991. The application refers to 15th July, which was the date of a press release in relation to the matter, but nothing turns on the precise date.
In early 1994 there were proceedings in public before the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee which led the Applicants' solicitors to seek an assurance from the Secretary of State that no further funds would be furnished. On 29th April 1994 the Secretary of State refused to give such an assurance, and that is the second decision which is challenged.
By the Notice of Motion the Applicants seek to have both decisions quashed and an Order preventing further payments from being made. But it may be that the Applicants will be content with a declaration that the July 1991 decision to make a grant was unlawful. In the course of the hearing before this court there have been four issues. First, whether the Applicants have standing to make the application; secondly, whether disclosure should be ordered of two minutes from Sir Tim Lankester, Permanent Secretary in the Overseas Development Administration, ("ODA") to Baroness Chalker, the Minister of Overseas Development, dated 5th and 7th February 1991; thirdly, whether the July 1991 decision was lawful; fourthly, what is the appropriate relief, if any, taking delay into account. As to the seco...
[/align]

[align=left]
Year 1995
R v Coventry Airport & Anor ex p. Phoenix Aviation & Ors, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 12, 1995, [1995] EWHC Admin 1


CO-3303-94: CO-0201-95: CO-649-95

BAILII Citation Number: [1995] EWHC QB 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL

Date: Wednesday 12 April 1995

B E F O R E;

LORD JUSTICE SIMON BROWN
MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL

- - - - - - - - - -
B e t w e e n :

R v COVENTRY AIRPORT & ANOR
EX PARTE PHOENIX AVIATION & ORS

R v DOVER HARBOUR BOARD
EX PARTE PETER GILDER & SONS & ANOR

R v ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS
EX PARTE PLYMOUTH CITY COUNCIL
- - - - - - - - - -
Computer Aided Transcript of John Larking
Chancery House, Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1QX
Tel: 071 404 7464 071 404 7464 Fax: 071 404 7443
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court
- - - - - - - - - -
SIR CHRISTOPHER PROUT QC and MISS K MCHUGH (Instructed by Beachcroft Stanleys, London, EC4A 1BN) appeared on behalf of Phoenix Aviation Ltd.
MR S ISAACS QC and MR C LEWIS (Instructed by Sharpe Pritchard, agents for Coventry City Council) appeared on behalf of Coventry Airport & Anor.
MR D PANNICK QC and MR D ANDERSON (Instructed by Mowll & Mowll, Dover CT16 1PN) appeared on behalf of Dover Harbour Board.
MR D VAUGHAN QC and MR P MOSER and MR D LLOYD-JONES (Instructed by Cole & Cole, Oxford, OX2 052) appeared on behalf of Peter Gilder & Sons.
MR R PLENDER QC and MR P DUFFY and MISS P WATSON (Instructed by Bindman & Partners, London, NW1 2SA) appeared on behalf of Compassion in World Farming
MR C HADDON-CAVE (Instructed by Solicitor for the National Farmers' Union, London, WC2E 9LY) appeared on behalf of the NFU
MR R FIELD QC and MR N GIFFIN (Instructed by R B Pearce, Legal Services, Associated British Ports) appeared for Associated British Ports.
MR R GORDON QC and MR N GREEN (Instructed by The City Solicitor, Plymouth City Council) appeared on behalf of Plymouth City Council. - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Lord Justice SIMON BROWN:
I
Introduction
The export of live animals for slaughter is lawful. But many think it immoral. They object in particular to the shipment of live calves for rearing in veal crates, a practice banned in this country since 1990. The result is that for some months past the trade has attracted wide-spread concern and a great deal of highly publicised protest. Some of that protest is lawful; some alas is not. The precise point at which the right of public demonstration ends and the criminal offence of public nuisance begins may be difficult to detect. But not only is all violent conduct unlawful; so too is any activity which substantially inconveniences the public at large and disrupts the rights of others to go about their lawful business.

It is the actual and threatened unlawful activity of animal rights protesters which underlies these three judicial review challenges. Two are brought by those wishing to export live animals, respectively through Coventry Airport and Dover Harbour; they seek to compel the port authorities to accept their trade. The third, by contrast, is brought by Plymouth City Council against its own harbour authority in an attempt to ban the trade. It is the fear of unlawful disruption which has prompted Coventry and Dover to refuse the trade (Coventry's ban being subject to the court first lifting the injunction requiring it at present to accept the trade); and which prompts Plymouth City Council to seek a similar ban. All three authorities, let it be clear at once, expressly now disavow animal welfare considerations as any part of their motivation (although earlier it was otherwise with both Coventry and Plymouth City Councils).

The central questions raised by all three applications are these:
1.Given that their trade is lawful, what if any rights are enjoyed by animal exporters to have it accepted by the public authorities administering the respective (air and sea) ports here under consideration? Or, putting it the other way round, what, if any, discretion have the authorities to refuse it?

This question falls to be decided by reference to the respective statutory regimes under which each of these authorities operates.

2.Assuming the authorities have a discretion to refuse trade which it would be within their physical capacity to handle, can they properly refuse it so as to avoid the disruptive consequences of threatened illegality? When, if ever, can a public authority properly bar lawful activity in response to unlawful protest? How absolute is the principle that the rule of law must prevail?
3.If it be lawful under national law for these authorities to refuse this trade so as to avoid the disruptive consequences of accepting it, does such refusal nevertheless contravene European Community law?

With that brief introduction let us turn at once to indicate something of the facts of these cases. These are before the court in the greatest detail. So as not to overburden this judgment, however, the barest summaries must suffice.


II
Coventry - the facts The first applicant is an air transport company, based in Coventry, engaged in the business of transporting...
[/align]

[align=left]
Year 1999
Ascot Wood Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment Transport & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 17, 1999, [2000] PLCR 265,[1999] EWHC 834 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL
BAILII Citation Number: [1999] EWHC 834 (Admin)
CO/3836/99
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(CROWN OFFICE LIST)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2

Date: Friday, 17th December 1999

B e f o r e:

MR NIGEL MACLEOD QC

Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ASCOT WOOD LIMITED

-v-

(1) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENVIRONMENT TRANSPORT

AND THE REGIONS

(2) RUNNYMEDE BOROUGH COUNCIL

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Computer-aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
180 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HD
Telephone No: 0171-421 4040/0171-404 1400
Fax No: 0171-831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MR CAWS (instructed by Finers, London, W1N 6LS) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.

MR MOULD (instructed by the Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the First Respondent.

The Second Respondent was not present and was not represented.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T 1. MR NIGEL MACLEOD QC: This is an application for an order under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash two decisions of the First Defendant's Inspector. The Inspector held a local enquiry into the Second Defendant's refusal to grant permission for (A) the erection of a single garage and store and (B) the removal of a condition attached to the planning permissi...
[/align]

[align=left]
Metropolitan Borough of Wirral, R (on the application of), R. v, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 20, 1999, [2000] ELR 620,[1999] EWHC 831 (Admin),[2000] Ed CR 355

SMITH BERNAL
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CO/4805/99
BAILII Citation Number: [1999] EWHC 831 (Admin)
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(CROWN OFFICE LIST)


Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2

Date: Friday, 20th December 1999


B e f o r e:

MR JUSTICE LATHAM

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

REGINA


-v-

THE SCHOOLS ADJUDICATOR

EX PARTE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF WIRRAL

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(Computer-aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
180 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HD
Telephone No: 0171-421 4040/0171-404 1400
Fax No: 0171-831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR RICHARD CLAYTON (instructed by PG Manson, Borough Solicitors and Secretary, Metropolitan Borough of Wirral, Merseyside CH44 8ED) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.

MR PAUL BROWN (instructed by the Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
Monday, 20th December 1999
JUDGMENT 1. MR JUSTICE LATHAM: This is an application by the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral, challenging a decision of the Schools Adjudicator in relation to the admissions procedures for secondary schools, which have been adopted by the applicants. This application raises for the first time consideration of the provisions and structure of the procedures laid down by the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, the relevant provisions of which c...
[/align]

[align=left]
Year 2000
Trevelyan v Secretary Of State For Environment, Transport & Regions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 24, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 282


11
Case No: CO/2206/99


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION


Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Monday, 24th January 2000


B e f o r e :

MR JUSTICE LATHAM
BETWEEN:



(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 Brooke North Solicitors for the Applicant)
Mr John Hobson (instructed by the Treasury Solicitors for the Respondent)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©

JUDGMENT
Mr Justice Latham:

1. Until recently, the Applicant was the Deputy Director of the Ramblers Association; and in this appeal he acts on his own behalf, and on behalf of the Association. The proceedings before me are an appeal brought under the provisions of Schedule 15 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (the 1981 Act) against an order made by the Respondent of the 1st April 1999 deleting a substantial proportion of a bridleway known as bridleway 8 from the definitive map of the area around Sawley in Lancashire. The bridleway forms part of a path designated by the County Council as Ribble Way. The Association is concerned not merely because of the consequent disruption of the path, but also because, it is said, important issues arise in relation to the powers given to relevant authorities under the 1981 Act to delete rights of way from definitive maps.
2. The definitive map in question was prepared pursuant to the provisions of the National Parks and Access to Countryside Act 1949 (the 1949 Act). Section 27 required the relevant authority, in this case Lancashire County Council, to survey land over which a right of way was alleged to subsist and to prepare a map showing such a right of way whenever in its opinion such a right of way subsisted, or was reasonably alleged to have subsisted, at the relevant date. For the purposes of the present case, the relevant date was the 22nd September 1952. In order to carry out this ...
[/align]

[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]

[align=left]
B, R (on the application of) v Collins & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 10, 2000, [2000] EWHC 639 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL
Case No: CO/68/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
IN CHAMBERS
Queen Elizabeth II
Law Courts
Liverpool

Date: 10 March 2000

B e f o r e :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAURICE KAY

- - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr Nigel Pleming QC and Ms Eleanor Grey (instructed by Reid Minty, London ) appeared for the Respondent
Mr Benet Hytner QC, Ms Phillippa Kaufmann and Mr Robin Makin Solicitor Advocate (instructed by E. Rex Makin and Company, Liverpool)
appeared for the Applicant

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGMENTMr Justice Maurice Kay:
1. The Applicant is 62 years old. On 6 May 1966 at Chester Assizes he was convicted of three murders and sentenced to three concurrent terms of life imprisonment. His offences, and those of his co-defendant, M.H., are often referred to as ``the Moors Murders''. The Secretary of State has fixed a full life tariff and the Applicant (unlike M.H.) accepts that he will never be released. For many years he was detained in high security prisons but on 29 November 1985 he was transferred to Park Lane Hospital by a Transfer Direction which referred to his suffering from mental illness within the meaning of the Mental Health Act and stated that the mental disorder was of a nature or degree which made it appropriate for him to be detained in a hospital for medical treatment. Park Lane Hospital, together with the nearby Moss Side Hospital, was later reorganised to form Ashworth Hospital. From his admission in November 1985 until June 1995 he was detained in Newman Ward. On 16 June 1995 he was moved to Jade Ward within the former Moss Side site. The move was carried out with police assistance because it involved movement outside the perimeter wall and along a short stretch of public highway. The move was uneventful. Throughout this period the authorities were mindful of the position of the Applicant and they made arrangements which, in his own interests, limited his freedom within the Hospital. To compensate for or counterbalance this they afforded him additional facilities, in particular a personal computer and special visiting arrangements.
2. For a number of reasons unrelated to the Applicant, Ashworth Hospital attracted public criticism and on 7 February 1997 an Inquiry was set up under the chairmanship of His Honour Peter Fallon QC. The ensuing Report recommended that ``Ashworth Hospital should close in its entirety at the earliest opportunity''. However, the Secretary of State for Health did not accept this recommendation. Without descending into unnecessary detail, the outcome was a more restrictive regime, the consequences of which included the withdrawal of the Applicant's computer and an increase in the security arrangements for visitors. In addition, the Applicant began to fear a return to the prison system.
3. On 18 June 1999, a Mental Health Review Tribunal considered the Applicant's position as part of a routine review and not at the request of the Applicant. It concluded that:
``the patient remains mentally ill and subject to a psychopathic disorder. His persistent verbal abuse of staff is largely attributable to such conditions. The patient is appropriately hospitalised for his own health and the safety of himself and others.''
4. At the same time the Tribunal expressed disappointment about the withdrawal of his computer and added that in its view: ``no step ought to be taken to reduce Mr. B.'s quality of life unless such can be adequately justified in his particular case. The patient's unique position in Ashworth would seemingly justify an...
[/align]

[align=left]
Rogers & Anor v Rhys Evans (A Firm) & Ors, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 30, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 312

1

Case No: QBENI 99/0743
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL
FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
BRISTOL DISTRICT REGISTRY FROM THE
ORDER BY H.H.JUDGE DYER
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, LONDON, WC2A 2LL

Thursday 30 March 2000

Before:

LORD JUSTICE EVANS

AND

MR JUSTICE PARKER
-----------------------------

Kenneth Edward Rogers & Anr
APPELLANTS
And

Rhys Evans (a firm) & Ors
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)
-----------------------------
Miss Barbara HEWSON (Instructed by Burges Salmon, Bristol for the Appellants)
Mr Christopher GIBSON QC & Mr Nigel GERALD (Instructed By Wansbroughs Willey Hargrave, Birmingham for the Respondents)
-----------------------------
Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©


ROGERS v. IDRIS DAVIES HOLDINGS LTD & Ors.


Mr Justice Jonathan Parker:
This is an appeal by the first claimant in the action, Mr Kenneth Rogers, against an Order made by His Honour Judge Dyer (sitting as a High Court Judge) on 15 April 1999, striking out the action as an abuse of process. The second claimant in the action is a company called Great Norwood Developments Ltd (I will refer to it hereafter as "GND"). The Order was made on the application of the sixth defendant in the action, Messrs Rhys Evans (a former firm of solicitors). The Judge refused Mr Rogers permission to appeal, but permission was subsequently granted on paper by Sir Anthony McCowan. Notice of appeal was subsequently issued on behalf of Mr Rogers, followed by a cross-notice on behalf of the sixth defendant seeking to affirm the judgment on the alternative basis that the action should be dismissed for want of prosecution on the ground that there has been inordinate and inexcusable delay, giving rise to serious p...
[/align]

[align=left]
Xuereb, R (on the application of) v Immigration Officer, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 26, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 352

Case no: co/2355/1999

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
CROWM OFFICE

Royal Courts of justice
Strand, London, wc2a 2ll

Friday 26 May 2000
Before:

his hon MR JUSTICE Turner

-------------------



THE QUEEN
-v-
AN IMMIGRATION OFFICER

Ex parte JOHN XUEREB


____________________
(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 Steven kovats (instructed by Treasury Solicitors for the 1st Respondent)
Miss stephanie harrison (instructed by Gill & Co for the Applicant)
____________________

Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©






Mr Justice TURNER :
Introduction
1. This is an application for judicial review of the decision of an immigration officer dated 28 May 1999, by which he refused to grant the applicant exceptional leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom and enforced his removal to Malta.

History
2. On arrival in the United Kingdom from Malta on 12 December 1997, the applicant had applied for asylum, he provided various disconnected reasons for his application. His asylum application was refused on 29 January 1998. On 12 February, the immigration officer refused leave for the applicant to enter the United Kingdom. He was detained. Sometime after his detention in HMP Rochester, the applicant was seen by a psychiatrist and diagnosed as suffering from acutely psychotic symptoms with marked paranoid delusions.

3. On the same day as he decided to refuse to grant leave to enter, the Secretary of State for the Home Department certified the asylum application under the provisions of paragraph 5(4)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. The applicant appealed against the decision refusing his asylum application. On 19 February 1998, the applicant was transferred to a psychiatric hospital under the provisions of sections 48 and 49 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (the Act of 1983). On investigation of the Maltese authorities, it transpired that the applicant had been admitted to a psychiatric hospital in Malta in 1994, "but had subsequently lapsed psychiatric follow up".
4. On 18 September 1998, the applicant's asylum appeal was dismissed. The special adjudicator found that the removal of the applicant to Malta, with the accompanying risk that his mental health would deteriorate in consequence, would amount to inhuman or degrading treatment within Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and recommended that...
[/align]

[align=left]
McNicholas Construction Co Ltd v Customs & Excise, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 16, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 357

50


Case No: CO/974/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 16 June 2000 at 0930am
B e f o r e :
THE HON MR JUSTICE DYSON

_______________________
(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)
_______________________
Charles Purle QC; Michael Sherry and Eamon McNicholas (instructed by Messrs Titmuss Sainer Dechert for the Appellants)
Kenneth Parker QC and Aidan Robertson (instructed by the Solicitor for HM Commissioners' of Customs and Excise for the Respondents)
_______________________
Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©








Mr Justice Dyson:

Introduction

1. McNicholas Construction Company Limited ("MC") appeals against the decision of the VAT and Duties Tribunal (Chairman Stephen Oliver QC) given on 12 January 1999 in relation to appeals against 24 assessments to VAT on MC for the three month periods from June 1990 to March 1996 inclusive. The assessments were all made on 21 March 1997. The aggregate amount of the assessed tax was £1,245,545 plus interest. The Tribunal allowed some of the assessments, with the result that the total amount of the assessed tax was reduced. It is MC's case that the Tribunal should have allowed the appeals in full, and discharged all the assessments of which complaint was made.

2. MC operates as a civil and public works contractor. One of its main activities is that of digging trenches for the laying of cable ducts. Part of its labour force comes from its own employed staff. But self-employed labourers, who usually work in gangs, form the much greater part of the workforce. As a result of investigations started in about 1993, the Commissioners came to the conclusion that companies and individuals purporting to be sub-contractors, whom they suspected to be bogus, were issuing VAT invoices to MC for services of providing labour that they had not provided. MC was claiming VAT relief as input tax of the amounts of VAT paid to these sub-contractors pursuant to the invoices. If in truth the sub-contractors were not making supplies to MC, there could be no obligation to pay them VAT, and no right in MC to claim VAT relief in respect of amounts purportedly paid as VAT.

3. Each of the 24 assessments was raised on the basis that in the opinion of the Commissioners MC had wrongly claimed input relief in respect of the VAT paid to 12 sub-contractors in all. The assessments were raised to recover the tax wrongly relieved in response to the input tax claims. Each assessment for each period was for an amount that was the aggregate of the input tax charged on the invoices issued in the names of the 12 sub-contractors.

4. The assessments for the periods 6/90 to 12/93 required the Commissioners to prove fraud against MC, since they were extended time-limit assessments made outside the normal 3 year time-limit for assessment to VAT. It was the Commissioners' case that MC was party to 3 frauds directed at the Commissioners. The first was supported by an organisation run by a Mr Christopher Lee, and was based on Hi-Tech House, Wembley. In the course of this fraud, VAT invoices were issued to MC in the names of 9 alleged sub-contractors. The second centred on the activities of Mr McHugh (who was employed as a project manager by MC): this related to the production of VAT invoices to MC in the names of 2 alleged sub-contractors. The third alleged fraud concerned the activities of a Mr Cassidy. Cassidy invoiced MC for consultancy services in finding labour purportedly supplied by the 11 alleged sub-contractors who were the subject of the first and second frauds.
5. The Commissioners' case before the Tribunal was that the steps in the fraud were as follows (see paragraphs 32-38 of the Decision). They started typically with the registration for VAT of individuals, whose businesses were ostensibly those of subcontractors. In some cases, the registration of an already VAT registered individual was used. In all cases, the person running the fraud, for example Mr Lee, operated and maintained a bank account in the name of the alleged subcontractor. MC paid into the bank account the amount shown as payable to that subcontractor in the relevant Certificate of Payment to Subcontractor for the services allegedly supplied by the subcontractor in the previous week. Payments were exclusive of VAT. The person running the fraud would arrange to withdraw the amounts required to pay the gangs whose services had allegedly been supplied the previous week. The amounts required to pay the gangs (and to make other disbursements) were a known percentage, usually 86%, of the amount paid into the bank account. The weekly withdrawals were transmitted to the sites, and used to pay the gangs and labourers. Periodically, VAT invoices w...
[/align]

[align=left]
Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd, R (on the application of) v Special Commissioner, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 08, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 415



Case no: CO/4481/2000

IN THE high court of justice
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of justice
Strand, London, wc2a 2ll

Wednesday 8 November 2000

Before:

LORD JUSTICE BUXTON
And
MR JUSTICE PENRY DAVEY
-------------------

The Queen
-v-
A SPECIAL COMMISSIONER
EX PARTE MORGAN GRENFELL & CO LTD
____________________
(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)
____________________

Michael Beloff QC and Mr Giles Goodfellow (instructed by Messers Slaughter and May) for the applicants

Mr Timothy Brennan and Miss Ingrid Simler (instructed by the Solicitor to the Inland Revenue) for the Respondents

____________________

Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©

LORD JUSTICE BUXTON:

This is the judgment of the Court.
Background
These proceedings arise in the context of a tax-related scheme called Sale With Tax Enhanced Leasing Arbitrage [STELA] devised and operated by Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd [MG], the well-known merchant bank. The scheme was commended to clients by MG as enabling them to secure extremely low cost term funding through a tax arbitrage based on property.
It will be necessary to describe STELA in somewhat more detail at a later stage of this judgment. Its essence, however, was that (to quote MG's documentation promoting the scheme) the client (in the example at which these proceedings are directed, Tesco plc)
grants a long leasehold interest in property that it already owns to [MG] and then leases it back under a sub-lease in a highly tax efficient manner........The lump sum obtained from the grant of the property interest is amortised through rental payments made by Tesco under the sub-lease. Tesco receives the sale proceeds tax free (or sheltered from tax) and obtains a tax deduction for the rental payments which repay both the principal and the interest. That is the tax advantage obtained by Tesco. The substantial premium paid by MG for the granting of the leasehold interest, seen by Tesco as the proceeds of the sale of the lease, would not be expec...
[/align]

Duncan & Anor, R (on the application of) v Legal Aid Board & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, February 16, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 294




Case No: CO/4807/99

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Wednesday, 16th February 2000

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE ROCH
LORD JUSTICE BROOKE
and
MR JUSTICE GAGE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


(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 Richard Gordon QC, Jenni Richards & Paul Bowen (instructed by Mackintosh Duncan for the Applicants)
Mr Nigel Pleming QC & Beverley Lang (instructed by the Legal Aid Board for the First Respondents)
Jonathan Crow (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor for the Second Respondent)



Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©
Index

Part Title Para Nos
1 An overview of the issues in the case 3 - 17
2 The history of legal aid before the 1988 Act 18 - 31
3 The 1988 Act and its aftermath 32 - 51
4 The need for reform: the advantages and challenges of controlled contracts 52 - 77
5 Certificated legal aid 77 - 86
6 The allocation of funds and the bidding system 87 - 111
7 The firm of Mackintosh Duncan and its contract award 112 - 130
8 The Burgundy book 131 - 135
9 Mackintosh Duncan's concerns about the new scheme 136 - 175
10 Prescribed panels 176 - 183
11 The new controls over travelling expenses 184 - 205
12 Practical problems facing firms under the new scheme 206 - 219
13 The meeting on 20th December and the amended contract offer 220 - 250
14 The Board's discretions and the need for transparency 251 - 302
15 The new generic franchise categories, their purpose and their scope 303 - 324
16 Particular franchise categories: (i) mental health 325 - 373
17 Particular franchise categories: (ii) community care 374 - 394
18 Particular franchise categories: (iii) employment 395 - 398
19 Particular franchise categories: (iv) immigration 399 - 413
20 The Law Society and the Legal Aid Practitioners' Group 414 - 430
21 The complaints by other practitioners 431 - 443
22 The applicants' submissions: (i) The common law right of access to the courts 444 - 468
23 The applicants' submissions: (ii) The right conferred by section 32(1) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 469 - 477
24 The applicants' submissions: (iii) the treatment of the not for profit sector 478 - 485
25 The applicants' submissions: (iv) Wednesbury irrationality 486 - 547
26 The court's conclusions 548 - 584

Lord Justice Brooke:
This is the judgment of the court.
There is before the court an application by Ian Duncan and Nicola Mackintosh for permission to apply for judicial review. They are the partners in a small firm of solicitors who have been practising under the name of Mackintosh Duncan since 1st July 1999 from office premises in Borough High Street, Southwark. The respondents to this application are the Legal Aid Board ("the Board") and the Lord Chancellor. At one level the applicants are challenging the legal validity of the whole new scheme for legal advice and assistance and free representation at mental health review tribunals which was introduced by the Board under powers given to it by the Lord Chancellor and with the authority of both Houses of Parliament with effect from 1st January 2000. At this level the applicants also challenge the legal validity of two directions made during December 1999 by the Lord Chancellor under Section 4(4) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 ("the 1988 Act") and one statutory instrument made by him in the same month, following positive resolutions by each House of Parliament, under Section 8(3) of the Act. At a lower level the applicants challenge the legal validity of the new scheme because they castigate as irrational certain aspects of the way in which the Board has planned and implemented it, particularly in relation to the way in which it affects their firm and their clients or potential clients. Their application is supported by the Law Society. Although the Society has not formally intervened, there are in evidence two statements by its President, Mr Robert Sayer, nearly 40 letters and two affidavits from firms of solicitors or other interested agencies who are worried about the way the scheme will affect their staff and their service to their clients, and a large number of documents concerned with the scheme and the events that led up to its introduction. On 13th December 1999 Latham J refused the applicants interim relief. He directed that their application for permission be listed for hearing before a Divisional Court on 12th January 2000, with the substantive hearing to follow if permission was granted. On 12th January we granted the Board and the Lord Chancellor a short adjournment, for reasons we ...

[align=left]
Gholam-Shehni, R (on the application of) v IAT, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 12, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 400

5

Case No CO/1317/99
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL & ADMINISTRATIVE COURT LIST.


Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date 12 Oct 2000

Before:

MR. JUSTICE GOLDRING

R E G I N A

-v-

IAT
Respondent

ex parte

GHOLAM-SHEHNI
Applicant

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(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)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MS. F. KRAUSE (Instructed by Messrs. Woolcombe Beer Watts) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.

MR. J. SWIFT (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Judgment

As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright



The application
1. The applicant is 29. He was born in Iran. He entered the United Kingdom on 3 August 1994. He claimed asylum on 5 August 1994. The Secretary of State refused his claim in a letter dated 5 March 1997. His appeal to the Special Adjudicator was dismissed by a determination on 13 December 1998. Leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal was refused on 19 February 1999. The applicant seeks judicial review of that refusal. He does so by permission of the Court of Appeal (following a hearing at which the Respondents were not represented), applications for permission having previously been refused both on paper and at an oral hearing.

The Secretary of State's refusal
2. The basis of the application was set out in a long statement dated 20 September 1994. Its contents were summarised in the Secretary of State's refusal letter of 5 March 1997 (page 69). In paragraph 2, the Secretary of State stated that "The basis of your claim is that you suffered continuous harassment in Iran because of your own and your family's political beliefs. You claimed that yo...
[/align]

[align=left]
Youngson, R (on the application of) v Birmingham City Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 11, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 430






IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATION COURT
Case No:CO/4235/1999


Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 11 December 2000

B e f o r e :

MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


(A child by Sarah Youngson his Litigation friend)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(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 De Mello and Miss Kelly (instructed by Gamble Morris Hills Kingston, Birmingham, B30 3AS) for the Claimant
Mr C SheldonError! Bookmark not defined. (instructed by Birmingham City Council Legal Services, Birmingham, B2 5EN) for the Defendant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©



MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: 1. Jacob Youngson was born on 24 October 1987 and is therefore now aged 13. He has ambitions to be a professional ballet dancer. He has some talent and his parents applied to the Local Education Authority of the Birmingham City Council (the Defendant) for a grant to enable him to attend a full time vocational dance course. On 10 Feb...
[/align]

[align=left]
ADT Auctions Ltd v Secretary Of State For Environment, Transport & Regions & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 16, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 305


- 37 -




Case No: CO/4040/99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL


Thursday 16 March 2000

B e f o r e :

THE HON MR JUSTICE JOWITT




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(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)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
David Elvin (instructed by Gouldens for the Claimant)
Timothy Corner (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor for the 1st Defendant)
Christopher Katkowski QC (instructed by Solicitor to Hart District Council for the 2nd Defendant)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©







Mr Justice Jowitt:
1. This is a statutory appeal pursuant to section 288(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the decision of the first defendant, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, dismissing the claimant's appeal against a refusal by the second defendant, Hart District Council as Local Planning Authority, of an outline application for planning permission to develop for housing 5.68 hectares of low grade agricultural land lying south west to the edge of Yately in Hampshire. The proposal was to build 42 houses. There was an appeal against this refusal to the Secretary of State. He appointed an Inspector, Mr D P Machin (the first Inspector), to hold an inquiry and report to him so that he might decide the appeal. The inquiry was held over a period of 8 days in June and July 1996.

2. The appeal site was close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and there was at the time of the planning application and appeal a live proposal to designate the SSSI also as a Special Protection Area for Wild Birds (SPA) by reason of the presence on the site of breeding woodlarks, nightjars and Dartford warblers. I shall refer to the site as a conservation site. It is a site to which the public have access.

3. An important issue at the appeal hearing was whether and to what extent the proposed development would adversely affect environmentally the conservation site. It is this aspect of the planning appeal which is relevant in the appeal before me. Appearing before the first Inspector were the claimant, the second defendant, Hampshire County Council, English Nature and other interested parties and evidence was called and submissions were made by them about the environmental issue.
4. There was evidence that within the conservation site are to be found the largest remnant of heathland habitat and the largest valley bog/heathland complex in the north east Hampshire section of the Thames basin. As well as being a home for the three species of birds, which depend on the heathland, the conservation site is home for a particularly rich intervertebrate fauna, including a number of nationally rare and scarce species. Among the factors which it was said would lead to a degradation of this site from the building of the 42 houses were the added pressure on the conservation site from the activities of the residents and their cats and dogs, from the dumping of garden refuse, the escape of and deliberate planting ...
[/align]

[align=left]
O'Bryne, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For The Environment & Transport & Regions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 24, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 347

1

Case no: co/1085/1999
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE
Royal Courts of justice
Strand, London, wc2a 2ll

Wednesday 24 May 2000

Before:

MR JUSTICE goldring
-------------------

Regina

v

Secretary of State for the Environment and Transport and Regions

Ex Parte O'Bryne
____________________
(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 John hobson qc (instructed by Treasury Solicitors for the Respondent)
Mr alistair craig (instructed by Donne Mileham & Haddock, Brighton, East Sus***, BW1 3YB, for the Applicant)
____________________

Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©
The application
This is an application by Ms O'Byrne for
A declaration that the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act, 1938, cannot deprive her, as a secure tenant, of the right to buy her flat from Croydon Borough Council ("Croydon") under section 118 of the Housing Act, 1985.
An order of certiorari to quash the decision said to deprive her of that right.
An order of mandamus to oblige the Secretary of State to consent to the sale by Croydon to her.

The basic issue Section 5(1) of the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938 ("the 1938 Act") provides that the consent of the minister has to be obtained before Green Belt land vested in a local authority is sold. If the relevant local authority is dissatisfied with the sale, the minister, before consenting to it, is obliged to hold a local inquiry. Section 118 of the Housing Act 1985 ("the 1985 Act") provides a right to a secure tenant to buy his council house. Ms O'Byrne is a such a tenant with such a right. Croydon was dissatisfied with the sale it ...
[/align]

[align=left]
Ragman, R (on the application of) v Special Adjudicator, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 01, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 411

- 1 -



Case No: CO/3860/99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT


Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL


Wednesday 1 November 2000

B e f o r e :

THE HON MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(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)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Linda Veloso (instructed by Figueiredo & Co for the Claimant) Sam Grodzinski (instructe
[/align]

[align=left]
T, R (on the application of) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 19, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 404




Case No: 1729/98

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL


Date: 19th October 2000



B e f o r e :

THE HON MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(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 Mahie Abey (instructed by Evans and Company) for the Applicant
Mr Hugo Keith (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) for the Respondent

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


J U D G M E N T
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright



Mr Justice Maurice Kay:
1. Late at night on the 26th February 1994 the Applicant was shot in his left leg when he was in area of south London. Because of the seriousness of his injuries he remained in hospital until June 1994. He spent a further month in hospital in September 1994 and towards the end of 1995 the injured leg had to be amputated. On the 9th March 1994 the Applicant applied to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ("the Board") for compensation. Although the Board has recently become the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, I shall refer to it by its name at the time of the events with which this case is concerned. His applicati...
[/align]

[align=left]
Rochford District Council, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For The Environment, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 12, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 337

Case no: co/4875/98
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
CROWM OFFICE
Royal Courts of justice
Strand, London, wc2a 2ll
Friday 12 May 2000

Before:

thE HON MR JUSTICE turner

THE QUEEN

V
THE SECRETARY OF STATE

for the ENVIRONMENT

Ex parte ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL
____________________

(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 Tim Mould (instructed by Treasury Solicitors for the 1st Respondent)
Mr John Dagg (instructed by Rochford Dist. Council for the Applicant)
____________________

Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©










Mr JUstice Turner:
1. This is an application for judicial review of the decision of a planning inspector dated 23rd October 1998 under which h...
[/align]

[align=left]
British Board Of Film Classification, R v Video Appeals Committee Of British Board Of Film Classification, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 16, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 341

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CO /4074/99
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(DIVISIONAL COURT)
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Tuesday 16 May 2000
B e f o r e:
MR JUSTICE HOOPER
- - - - - -
R E G I N A
-v-
THE VIDEO APPEALS COMMITTEE OF THE
BRITISH BOARD OF FILM CLASSIFICATION
Respondent
(EX PARTE THE BRITISH BOARD OF FILM CLASSIFICATION)
Applicant
- - - - - -
Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street,
London EC4A 2HD
Tel: 0171 831 3183 0171 831 3183
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - -
LORD LESTER OF HERNE HILL QC and MR ANDREW HUNTER (Instructed by Messrs Goodman Derrick, London, EC4A 1PT) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
MR DAVID PANNICK QC and MS JANE MULCAHY (Instructed by Messrs Henri Brandman, London, W1M 9LA) appeared on behalf of Sheptonhurst Limited.
MR HUGH RICHARDS (Instructed by Messrs Clarkes) appeared on behalf of Prime Time Promotions (Shifnal) Limited.
- - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©


Mr Justice Hooper:
The applicant, the British Board of Film Classification ("BBFC") challenges by way of judicial review the decision of its Video Appeals Committee (the "VAC") to allow an appeal brought by Sheptonhurst Limited ("Sheptonhurst") and Prime Time (Shifnal) Ltd ("Prime Time") against the decision of the Board refusing an application to classify, in the absence of further editing, a number of videos as R18, that is: suitable for sale only in licensed *** shops. There are about 80 licensed *** shops, about half of which are owned by Sheptonhurst's parent company. The editing required the following material to be removed:
"all shots of penetration by penis, hand or dildo as well as all shots of a penis being masturbated or taken into a woman's mouth".
The respondent, after a two day hearing, allowed the appeal by a majority of 4 - 1 and granted the videos in question an R18 classification. It is not disputed that the remit of the VAC is to hear appeals "de novo" (page 9 of the judgment of the VAC). It is not merely exercising a supervisory jurisdiction of the kind exercised on a judicial review application.
Permission to apply for judicial review was refused on paper by Dyson J. and granted after an oral hearing by Forbes J.. The Respondent did not take part in these proceedings. Sheptonhurst and Prime Time did appear. Counsel for Prime Time relied substantially on the arguments of counsel for Sheptonhurst, Mr David Pannick Q.C.. The panel which heard the appeal was presided over by Mr....
[/align]

[align=left]
Blackfordby & Boocorpe Action Group Ltd, R (on the application of) v Leicester County Council Hepworth Building Products Ltd & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 15, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 304



- 2 -
In the HIGH Court of JUSTICE Case no: co/1822/99
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST The County Court
At Chester
Wednesday 15 March 2000
Before:
thE HON MR JUSTICE RICHARDS
THE QUEEN
-V-
LEICESTER COUNTY COUNCIL
HEPWORTH BUILDING PRODUCTS LIMITED and
ONYX (UK) LIMITED
RESPONDANT
EX PARTE
APPLICANT
BLACKFORDBY & BOOTHCORPE ACTION GROUP LTD
____________________
(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)
___________________
COUNSEL: APPLICANT Mr D Wolfe instructed by public interest Lawyers
1st RESONDENT Mr R Griffths QC & Mr J Strachan instructed by Leicester County Council Legal Department
2nd RESPONDENT Mr A Gilbart QC instructed by Dibb Lupton Aslop (Solicitors)
____________________
Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©

MR JUSTICE RICHARDS:

The members of the applicant company are residents of the village Blackfordby and the hamlet of Boothorpe in Leicestershire. They seek to challenge through the company a decision by the first respondent, Leicestershire County Council, on 26 March 1999 to grant planning permission for the extraction of coal and clay and for the disposal of 3.9 million tonnes of putrescible waste on a site close to their homes. I shall refer to the site as a whole as "the Albion site", though it contains a number of separate areas of which Albion and Moira are the two most important. The second respondents ("Hepworth" and "Onyx") were parties to the joint application for planning permission.
The matter came before me as an application for permission to apply for judicial review, but on the basis that I would hear full argument and, if permission were granted, would proceed to determine the substantive application for judicial review. I have decided to grant permission. What follows is therefore my decision on the substantive application. In addition, I accede to the application by the second respondents that they be formally joined as parties to the substantive proceedings for judicial review.
The central question raised by the challenge is the status, for the purposes of a planning decision, of various environmental "objectives" laid down by the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994, which implement an EC directive. The applicant contends that it is not sufficient for the local planning authority to take those objectives into account as material considerations; they require the authority to go further and to minimise environmental impacts and risks. Subsidiary aspects of the challenge concern alleged failures to take into account material considerations and arguments as to the rationality of the Council's decision on certain matters.
Factual background
The area has a long history of clay and coal extraction. The Albion site is subject to a number of extant minerals consents. It suffers from dereliction through uncontrolled workings and a piecemeal approach to mineral extraction over the years. There were at the time of the decision challenged three unrestored voids totalling 7.7 million cubic metres, a stockpile of 5 million tonnes of clay, and continuing ad hoc opencast coal and clay mineral extraction. Since 1991 various strategies have been formulated to reclaim and improve derelict land to restore the voids. Those strategies have depended upon mineral working and land fill to fund the reclamation and enable restoration of the voids. In 1995 Hepworth, which is the largest land and clay owner in the Ashby Woulds, formed a joint venture company to submit a planning application for a comprehensive scheme of extraction and reclamation. Planning permission was refused by the Council in 1996. Coal and clay extraction resumed at the Albion site pursuant to the existing...
[/align]

[align=left]
Thames Water Utilities Ltd v London Borough Of Bromley, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 04, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 301

- 1 -


Case No: CO/4600/99
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
CROWM OFFICE LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Tuesday 4 March 2000

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE SCHIEMANN
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS BROWN






- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(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)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GEOFFREY STEPHENSON (instructed by Legal Department, Thames Water for the Appellant)
MARK LOWE Q.C. & IAN ALBUTT (instructed by Legal Department London Borough of Bromley, Parker, Arrenberg, Dawson, Co for the Respondent)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©









Lord Justice Schiema...
[/align]

[align=left]
B, R (on the application of) v North East Thames Mental Health Review Tribunal, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 13, 2000, [2000] EWHC 640 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL
CO 2556/1999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(CROWN OFFICE LIST)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2

Tuesday, 13th June 2000

Before:

MR JUSTICE SCOTT-BAKER

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

REGINA

-v-

THE NORTH EAST THAMES MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW TRIBUNAL
EX PARTE F. B

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(Computer-aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
180 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HD
Telephone No: 0207-421 4040/0207-404 1400 Fax...
[/align]

[align=left]
Amin, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Home Department & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 17, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 371

10


CO/4956/1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL


Date: 17th July 2000

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

B e f o r e :

THE HON MR JUSTICE LANGLEY

Between:

(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 A Underwood and Ms G Broadfoot (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor for the Respondent)
Ms. M. Phelan (instructed by Messrs Thompson & Co for the Applicant)


Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
This application raises issues as to the appropriate procedure to be followed in the hearing of asylum appeals by Special Ad...
[/align]

[align=left]
Telecom Securicor Cellular Radio Ltd v National Assembly For Wales & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 02, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 412

13

CO/575/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL

Thursday, 2 November 2000

BEFORE:

THE HON MR JUSTICE RICHARDS
BETWEEN:

TELECOM SECURICOR
CELLULAR RADIO LIMITED
Claimant
- v -

THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES
First Defendant
- and -
BRECON BEACONS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY
[/align]
...

[align=left]
North Yorkshire Police v Saddington, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 26, 2000, [2001] RTR 15,[2000] EWHC Admin 409

-- 1 --


Case No: CO/2184/2000

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Thursday 26 October 2000

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(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 Geraldine Kelly (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service, Harrogate) appeared for the Appellant

Mr Richard Reed (instructed by Grahame Stowe Bateson) appeared for the Respondent

Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©



Pill LJ:

1. This is a prosecutor's appeal by way of case stated against decisions of the Justices for the County of North Yorkshire sitting at Harrogate on 21 February 2000 whereby they dismissed informations against Michael Saddington ("the respondent") with respect to conduct at Harrogate on 23 March 1999.

2. The two informations the subject of this appeal allege that the respondent:
"i) Did drive a motor vehicle namely an unregistered motorised scooter on Crescent Road whilst disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence. Contrary to section 103(1)(b) Road Traffic Act 1988 and schedule 2 to t...
[/align]