-
[align=left]
Zietsman & Anor, R (on the application of) v Dental Practice Board, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 13, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 433
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CO/1828/1999
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(ADMINISTRATIVE COURT)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Wednesday, 13th December 2000
B e f o r e:
MR JACK BEATSON QC
(Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
- - - - - - -
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF
(1) PAUL ZIETSMAN
(2) MARIUS SCHMULIAN
-v-
DENTAL PRACTICE BOARD
- - - - - -
(Computer-aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Telephone No: 0171-421 4040/0171-404 1400
Fax No: 0171-831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - -
MR S AIREY (instructed by Titmuss Sainer Dechert, 2 Serjeants' Inn, London EC4Y 1LT) appeared on behalf of the Applicants.
MR P HAVERS, QC (instructed by Clyde & Co., 51 Eastcheap, London EC3M 1JP) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
1. JACK BEATSON Q.C.:- Introduction: Dentists providing treatment under the NHS are required to make claims for payment to the Dental Practice Board (the "Board"). This application concerns the power of the Board to suspend consideration of such claims for payment pending the outcome of police investigations as to whether those claiming payment, in the present case orthodontists, are involved in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the NHS.
2. The Board is a statutory body established by section 37 of the National Health Service Act 1977 ("the 1977 Act") for the purpose of carrying out prescribed duties "with respect to ... dental treatment and appliances, and to the remuneration of dental practitioners providing dental services" within the NHS. Provision is made for the approval of payments by the Board and payment by it in regulation 20 of the National Health Service (General Dental Services) Regulations 1992 SI 1992 No 661 ("the Regulations"). Regulation 20(2) provides:-
"The Board shall, where it approves a claim for remuneration made by a dentist, other than a salaried dentist, in respect of
(a) care and treatment under a continuing care arrangement or a capitation arrangement;
(b) treatment on referral; or
(c) occasional treatment;
completed by the dentist, pay, in accordance with the Scale of Fees, the remuneration due to the dentist in respect of such care and treatment, treatment on referral, or occasional treatment."
Prior to 1992, the functions of the Board (then known as the Dental Estimates Board) were to approve claims for payment but not to pay them (Regulation 11 of the National Health Service (General Dental Services) Regulations 1973).
3. The claims with which this application is concerned are in respect of orthodontic treatment. Since the cost of orthodontic treatment commonly amounts to several hundred pounds for a full course of treatment, which commonly takes 2-3 years to complete, schedule 4 to the Regulations requires that all courses of orthodontic treatment which it is anticipated will cost more than £600 must be given prior approval by the Board. The Board generally proceeds on the basis of the dentist's own assessment. In the case of orthodontic treatment, regulation 20(6) of the Regulations empowers the Board to make interim payments on account pending completion of the treatment. Further, since most orthodontic treatment is provided to children who are exempt from paying a "patients charge", ...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Adams, R (on the application of) v Vale Of Glamorgan DC, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 12, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 323
- 1 -
Case no: co/2775/99
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
CROWM OFFICE
Royal Courts of justice
Strand, London, wc2a 2ll
Friday 12 April 2000
Before:
thE HON MR JUSTICE richards
Regina
V
Vale of Glamorgan DC
Ex parte David Adams
____________________
(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)
____________________
No Council for Respondents
Mr Elvin (instructed be 4 Breams Buildings) for the Applicant
____________________
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE RICHARDS:
The applicant, Mr David Adams, is the tenant farmer of The Darren Farm at Cowbridge in the Vale of Glamorgan. The farm has been farmed by the family since 1941. The applicant now runs it in partnership with his sister and brother under the name of E.T. Adams & Son. His mother used to be a member of the partnership and used to live in the house at the farm, but she died in 1999. His sister thereupon inherited the mother's share and moved into the house. The farm itself is a dairy farm and is also used for the purposes of a livestock haulage business. The freehold owners of the land are the Trustees of the Penllyn Estate. In the documents before the court there is an allegation that the Trustees have conducted a vendetta against the Adams family over several years. That, however, is not something about which I can or should form a judgment. It is not relevant to the issues before me and the Trustees have chosen not to take any part in the p...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Secretary of State for the Home Department, R (on the application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 15, 2000, [2000] EWHC 638 (Admin)
SMITH BERNAL
CO/1928/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(ADMINISTRATIVE COURT)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Friday, 15th December 2000
Before:
MR JUSTICE COLLINS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF Claimant
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
VERSUS
MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW TRIBUNAL Defendant
and
M.W. and F.O. Interveners
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Computer-aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HD
Telephone No: 0207-421 4040/0207-404 1400
Fax No: 0207-831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MR RABINDER SINGH (Instructed by the Treasury Solicitors, Queen Anne's Chambers, 28 Broadway, London, SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the Claimant.
MS A FOSTER (Instructed by the Treasury Solicitors, Queen Anne's Chambers, 28 Broadway, London, SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the Defendant.
MR P BOWEN (Instructed by Scott-Moncrieff, Harbour & Sinclair Solicitors, Office 5, 19 Greenwood Place, London, NW5 1LB) appeared on behalf of FO).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENTJUDGMENT
1. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: In form, this case involves an application by the Secretary of State for a declaration that a decision by a Mental Health Review Tribunal, made on 14th March of this year, to adjourn a case before it until 8th June of this year, was wrong in law. We are now in December. As may be obvious, the adjournment itself is long past and to that extent the claim is academic. Indeed, no one has appeared before me to represent the patient whose case the Tribunal was hearing. But the issue is of considerable importance to the tribunals and to patients. In those circumstances, it is clearly desirable that the matter should be decided, particularly as it is unlikely that any decision to adjourn will be live by the time judicial review claims could be heard. There is ample authority to justify me hearing the case, notwithstanding that it may be thought to be academic.
2. Although no one has appeared on behalf of the patient involved, Mr Bowen has been permitted to appear before me and to make submissions on behalf of another patient who found himself in exactly the same position in a hearing before another tribunal. It has been helpful to have submissions from the patient's point of view, and I am satisfied that all possible arguments relevant to the issue have been placed before me.
3. The factual background can be shortly stated. The patient, whom I shall refer to as ``Ms W'', was convicted in December 1990 of offences of burglary, handling and possession of an offensive weapon. Reports before the Crown Court showed her to be suffering from a psychopathic disorder, and so she was ordered to be detained in a special hospital and a restriction order was made. She was placed in Broadmoor. She applied to the Mental Health Review Tribunal in October 1999; this was not her first application. A few days before the hearing was due, her solicitors wrote requesting an adjournment because, to quote the letter:
``We feel that it would be very helpful to the Tribunal to have information about a possible assessment from an all-women unit before deciding this tribunal ...''
4. Two days later, the Home Office, who had of course been notified and served with this letter from the patient's solicitors, wrote to the Tribunal saying this:
``I should be grateful if you would respectfully remind both the solicitors and the Tribunal members that directions about transfers are outside the Tribunal's remit and that, therefore, it is inappropriate for the hearing to be adjourned solely for that purpose.'' 5. ...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Society Of Lloyds v Twinn & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 23, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 308
CHBKF 1999/0660/B3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHBKF 1999/0659/B2
CHANCERY DIVISION
Thursday 23rd March 2000
Before:-
THE VICE-CHANCELLOR:
The Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Scott
The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Chadwick
The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Buxton
B E T W E E N:-
_________________________
(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 J. Briggs instructed by The Society of Lloyds for the Appellant
Ms C. Mackenzie-Smith instructed by Geoffrey George Twinn and Gail Sally Anne Twinn for the Respondents
_________________________
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
The Vice-Chancellor:
1. This is an appeal by the Society of Lloyd's (Lloyd's) against the judgment of Jacob J., given on 11 May 1999. The respondents to the appeal are Mr and Mrs Twinn. They are, or were, Lloyd's Names.
2. On 12 July 1998 Lloyd's served on Mr and Mrs Twinn statutory demands. A separate statutory demand was served on each. The statutory demands called for payment of sums said to be owing by them to Lloyd's under the so-called Reconstruction and Renewal Agreement entered into between Lloyd's and each of the Names who accepted the terms on offer. No application to set aside the statutory demands was made. Nor was payment made. So, on 23 September 1998 Lloyd's petitioned for bankruptcy orders to be made against Mr and Mrs Twinn. There was a separate petition against each of them. The petition against Mr Twinn alleged an indebtedness to Lloyd's of £1,018,832. Paragraph 2 of the petition said this:- "2. The debtor is justly and truly indebted to us in the aggregate sum of £1,018,832 being the amount due to us pursuant to the terms of Settlement Agreement concluded between us and the debtor in 1996 and payable by Noon on 30 September 1996 whereby the debtor is deemed to be an "Accepting Name". By a letter dated 27 June 19...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
DPP v West, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 17, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 403
-- 1 --
Case No: CO/2276/2000
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(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)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr John Riley (instructed by the CPS, Buckinghamshire Branch) appeared for the Appellant
The Respondent was not represented
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright
Pill LJ:
1. This is a prosecutor's appeal by way of case stated against a decision of the Buckinghamshire Justices, sitting at Aylesbury, on 28 March 2000. The Justices made an order under Re...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Al-Fawwaz v The Governor Of Brixton Prison, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 30, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 424
Case No: CO/3833/99
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Thursday 30 November 2000
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE BUXTON
MR JUSTICE ELIAS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(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 Edward Fitzgerald QC and Mr Keir Starmer (instructed by Raja & Partners for the Applicant)
Mr James Lewis and Miss Saba Naqshbandi (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor for the Respondent)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Buxton:
1. This the judgment of the court, to which both members have made substantial contributions.
The basic facts and the issues
2. The applicant Mr Al-Fawwaz is accused in proceedings before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York of conspiring with Usama bin Laden and others between 1 January 1993 and 27 September 1998 by agreeing that:
a) citizens of the the USA would be murdered in the the USA and elsewhere;
b) bombs would be planted and exploded at American embassies and other American installations;
c) American officials would be killed in the Middle East and Africa;
d) American soliders deployed in the United Nations peacekeeping missions would be murdered;
e) American Diplomats and other internationally protected persons would be murdered.
3. The category referred to of Internationally Protected Persons [IPP] is recognised by the [United Kingdom] Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978. That provides that any murder of an IPP outside the United Kingdom is justiciable within the United Kingdom, even if the accused is not a United Kingdom citizen. 4. The USA government's case alleges as follows. Bin Laden was the moving force in an Islamic terrorist organisation called Al-Qaida, devoted to violent opposition to, in particular, the USA. The organisation issued various Fatwahs or rulings, which members were obliged to obey, including rulings requiring the pursuit of jihad (holy war) against the USA. Since 1993 al Qaida had operated a cell in Kenya. In 1994 it created an organisation in London called the Advice and Reform Committee [ARC], which purported to be devoted to peaceful activities against breaches of human rights in Arab countries, but which was in fact the London organisation of the conspiracy. Amongst the alleged fruits of this conspira...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Holding & Barnes Plc, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Environment, Transport & Regions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 01, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 432
Case Nos: 3062/2000, 3606/2000
3742/2000, 3904/2000
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Wednesday 13 December 2000
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE TUCKEY
MR. JUSTICE HARRISON
-----------------------------
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
This is the judgment of the court.:
Introduction.
These four applications raise the very important question whether the processes by which the Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions (SSETR) makes decisions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) and orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992 (TWA), the Highways Act 1980 (HA) and the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (ALA) are compatible with Article 6 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. This Article says :
In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ........ everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ........ by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law."
It is common ground that such decisions and orders do affect civil rights and obligations. In the present cases the SSETR does not argue that he is himself an independent and impartial tribunal but contends that the decision making process as a whole including the right of appeal to and the reviewing role of the High Court does comply with Article 6. Whether he is right about this is the central question we have to decide. If he is not, the SSETR's alternative submission is that this court should expand its role to review his decisions consistently with Sections 3 and 6 of The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) so as to make the processes compliant. These sections say :
3. (1) So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.
6. (1) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an act if :-
(a) as the result of one or more provisions of primary legislation, the authority could not have acted differently; or
(b) in the case of one or more provisions of, or made under, primary legislation which cannot be read or given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights, the authority was acting so as to give effect to or enforce those provisions.
(3) In this section "Public Authority" includes -
a court ........
If the processes are not compliant and cannot be made so, the SSETR contends that Section 6 (2) HRA applies to them so Section 6 (1), which would otherwise make his acts unlawful, does not apply. Such a finding would enable us to make declarations of incompatibility under Section 4 HRA which says :
4. (1) Subsection (2) applies in any proceedings in which a court determines whether a provision of primary legislation is compatible with a Convention right.
(2) If the court is satisfied that the provision is incompatible with a Convention right, it may make a declaration of that incompatibility.
Two of the cases, (R -v- SSETR ex p. Holding and Barnes PLC (HB) and R -v- SSETR ex p. Premier Leisure (PL) ) involve decisions by the SSETR to call in their applications for planning permission under Section 77 TCPA. As well as the Article 6 challenge to the process as a whole HB contends that the decision to call in should be quashed on conventional judicial review grounds. The third case (Alconbury Developments Ltd. (ADL) -v- SSETR) involves "recovered" appeals against refusals of planning permission under Sections 78 and 79 TCPA and proposed orders under Section 1 TWA relating to the construction and operation of a railway in connection with the proposed re-development of RAF Alconbury. The fourth case (SSETR -v- Legal and General (LG)) involves proposed highway orders and related compulsory purchase orders (CPO) in connection with a scheme to improve the A34/M4 junction. It is the SSETR's acts in calling in or recovering planning decisions and proposing to make TWA, HA or CPO orders which are alleged to be unlawful under Section 6 (1) HRA because they do not comply with Article 6.
In the PL case a public inquiry has been held but no decision has yet been made. In the ADL and LG cases public inquiries have started but are now adjourned to await the decision of this court. We have been told that a number of other important public inquiries have been adjourned for the same reason. For these reasons the hearing before us was arranged at short notice and we are extremely grateful to all involved for the huge amount of work which has gone into its preparation and the presentation of the argument. In the interests of producing a judgment quickly we intend to summarise the material put before us (about 2,500 pages of evidence, 200 authorities and nearly 5 days of submissions from 10 counsel) as shortly as possible. In view of th...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Fernback & Ors v London Borough Of Harrow, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 11, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 278
Case No: CO/3942/2000
Neutral Citation Number: [2001] EWHC Admin 278
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Wednesday 11th April 2000
B e f o r e :
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE RICHARDS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(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 Eian Caws (instructed by Mishcon de Reya for the Claimants)
Mr David Mole QC, Mr Paul Brown and Mr Paul Greatorex (instructed by Harrow Legal Services for the Defendant)
Mr Matthew Horton QC and Mr Reuben Taylor (instructed by Turbervilles for the Interested Party, Laing Homes Limited)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Richards:
1. The claimants challenge a decision made by the Planning Committee of the defendant council on 15 September 2000 to grant planning permission (subject to the completion of a section 106 agreement) for a residential development at RAF Stanmore Park, Uxbridge Road, Stanmore. The application site, which covers some 14 hectares, was formerly used for the purposes of the RAF. The proposed development includes 411 dwellings in houses and flats, community facilities, access, parking and public open space. The developer is Laing Homes (North London) Limited.
2. The claim raises three main issues: (1) whether the council erred in its consideration of the traffic impact of the development, (2) whether there was a breach of the regulations concerning environmental impact assessments and (3) whether the decision was procedurally unfair.
Brief factual history
3. In 1999 Laing Homes sought a screening opinion from the council pursuant to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 as to whether the proposed development would require an EIA. On 13 September 1999 the council, through its Chief Planning Officer acting under delegated powers, gave a screening opinion to the effect that the proposal was not considered to require an EIA. The reasons for that opinion included:
"1. The proposal involves the redevelopment of a site that contains a substantial amount of building and hard standing and would not be on a significantly greater scale than the previous use. In addition, the estimated number of dwellings will be significantly lower than the indicative guideline for "urbanisation" set out in DETR Circular 02/99.
2. The Local Planning Authority will require a Transport Impact Assessment to be submitted at the planning application stage. This should assess the predicted impact of the transportation demands of the development and include measures to mitigate any adverse effect." 4. An application for planning permission, at that time relating to 390 dwellings, was submitted on 3 November 1999. It was soon followed by a transportation impact assessment prepared by Singleton Clamp & Partners for the developer. The application was subsequent...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Norgren, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, February 18, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 296,[2000] 3 WLR 181,[2000] QB 817
- 20 -
Case No: C0-4530-97
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (DIVISIONAL COURT)
In the matter of an application for judicial review
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Friday, 18 February 2000
B e f o r e :
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES
(LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL)
Mr JUSTICE KLEVAN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(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)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Clare Montgomery QC & James Lewis (instructed by Kingsley Napley)
for the applicant
James Turner QC (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State
Paul Garlick QC (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the
United States Government
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES:
The applicant Mr Christian Norgren, seeks judicial review of an order to proceed made by the Home Secretary on 30 September 1997 under paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 1 to the Extradition Act 1989.
The applicant is a Swedish citizen. In 1989 he was a director of Asea Brown Boveri Ltd, a multinational corporation. In his capacity as director he became aware of a proposed merger between an Asea Brown Boveri subsidiary and a Delaware corporation, Combustion Engineering Inc. It is alleged that with that knowledge, and in expectation that the merger would cause a rise in the value of the stock in Combustion Engineering, the applicant procured the purchase of Combustion Engineering stock on his own behalf on the New York and Pacific Stock Exchanges.
The...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Rezouali, R (on the application of) v Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 31, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 318
- 13 -
Case Nos: CO/2188/1999; CO/984/2000; CO/309/2000
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION)
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Friday 31st March 2000
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY
and
MR JUSTICE BUTTERFIELD
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(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 Salter ( for the applicant (Rezouali) and the respondent (Mendoza)(instructed Wilson Carca London, W1V 5AH)
Timothy Spencer (instructed by Legal Services, City of Westminster Council for the City of Westminster Council)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Kennedy:
1. BACKGROUND TO THESE PROCEEDINGS
We have before us an application for Judicial Review and two appeals by way of Case Stated, arising out of two separate sets of proceedings taken by Westminster City Council for the closure of the ground floor of Nos. 5 and 6 Walkers Court, Soho, London, W.1., on the basis that, in each case, the premises were being used as an unlicensed *** shop. Mr Rezouali traded at No.5 and Mr Mendoza at No.6.
Mr Rezouali's case came before Mrs McIvor, sitting as an Acting Stipendiary Magistrate at Horseferry Road Magistrates Court on 19th May 1999, when she gave her reasons for making the order sought. The power to make the order is to be found in The City ...
[/align]
