-
[align=left]
Naeem v Bank Of Credit & Commerce, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 19, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 335
Case Number: CHANF 1999/0176/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL
Wednesday 19th April 2000
Before:
THE VICE-CHANCELLOR:
The Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Scott
-and-
Lord Justice buxton
B E T W E E N
International S.A.
__________________________________
(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 Robin Allen QC & Mr Isaac Jacob (instructed by Messrs Bweale & Co for the Appellant)
Mr Christopher Jeans QC & Mr D Stilitz (instructed by Messrs Lovells for the Respondent)
__________________________________
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
The Vice-Chancellor:-
1. Two claimants gave notice of appeal against the order of Lightman J of 30 December 1998. They were Mr Khawaja Mohammad Naeem and Mr Abdul Naim Mohammad. We were told that since then, Mr Mohammad has agreed terms of settlement with BCCI. Mr Naeem is now, therefore, the sole appellant. But the issues raised on this appeal do not depend to any significant, extent, if at all, on facts peculiar to Mr Naeem's case. They are issues which affect the cases of every BCCI ex-employee who, like Mr Naeem and Mr Mohammad, signed an ACAS COT3 form and thereby purported to accept the terms that BCCI were offering -
"... in full and final settlement of all or any claims whether under, Statute, Common Law or in Equity of whatever nature that exist or may exist and, in particular, all or any claims rights or applications of whatsoever nature that the [ex-employee] has or may have or has made or could make in or to the Industrial Tribunal, except the [ex-employee's] rights under [BCCI's] pension scheme".
2. The question for decision is whether Mr Naeem, who signed a COT3 form on 4 July 1990, thereby barred himself from subsequently bringing a "stigma" claim against BCCI. In Malik -v- BCCI [1998] AC 20 the House of Lords, reversing a unanimous Court of Appeal who had dismissed an appeal from Mr Justice Evans-Lombe, held that breach of contract "stigma" claims by ex-employees of BCCI could, if the requisite facts could be proved, succeed.
3. It is accepted that, at the time Mr Naeem signed the COT3 agreement, he did not know that he could bring a breach of contract "stigma" claim against BCCI. It is to be assumed, for present purposes, that he was unaware of the Bank's illegal and dishonest conduct of its banking business; conduct that led to its collapse in the summer of 1991 and that, as the House of Lords held, may have constituted a breach by BCCI of the contractual obligation of trust and confidence that it owed to its employees.
4. The main argument for Mr Naeem, presented very clearly by his counsel, Mr Robin Allen Q.C., is that since Mr Naeem did not know that he had a "stigma" claim, the COT3 agreement should not be construed so as to release that claim. There is, however, also a subsidiary argument. The illegal and dishonest nature of the business being carried on by BCCI, which is the foundation stone of the "stigma" claim, was something of which Mr Naeem was unaware but, obviously, was known to BCCI through the medium of one or more of its corrupt officers. Since BCCI did not, at the time the COT3 agreement was signed, make any disclosure to Mr Naeem of the facts, known to itself but not to Mr Naeem, giving rise to the "stigma" claim, the COT3 agreement cannot be enforced against Mr Naeem, at least so far as the release of the "stigma" claim is concerned.
5. These two arguments are, or at least ought to be, distinct from one another. The first raises an issue of construction. The principles of construction of written documents should be applied to resolve it. The second argument involves a principle of equity. Should a beneficiary of a general release, who at the time of the release knows of some claim that the releasor can make against him but of which, to his knowledge, the releasor is ignorant, be permitted to rely on the general release in order to prevent that claim being made? In Taylor Fashions Ltd -v- Liverpool Trustees Ltd [1982] QB 133 Oliver J. was considering whether, in order to establish an estoppel by acquiescence, each and every one of the five "probanda" set out by Fry J. in Willmott -v- Barber (1880) 15 Ch.D. 96 had to be shown to be present. He rejected that rigid approach. He concluded that:- "... principle requires a very much broader approach which is directed at ascertaining whether, in particular individual circumstances, it would be unconscionable for a party to deny that which, knowingly or unknowingly, he has allowed or encouraged an...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Inland Revenue, R (on the application of) v Income Tax, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 14, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 354
22
Case No: CO/2745/99 and CO/2979/99
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Wednesday14 June 2000
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)
__________________________________
Mr D GOLDBERG QC and Clive LEWIS (instructed by Messrs Travers Smith Braithwaite for the Ulster Bank Ltd.)
Mr T. BRENNAN (instructed by the Solicitor of Inland Revenue for the Commissioners of Inland Revenue)
-__________________________________
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Dyson:
Introduction
1. These two applications concern section 20 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 (TMA). Under section 20, inspectors of taxes have power to call for documents from, amongst others, third parties to an investigation. In order to exercise that power, an inspector must first give a notice to the person from whom he wants the documents. Section 20(8) and (8A) provide that he can only give such notice without naming the taxpayer with whose liability he is concerned if a Special Commissioner gives his consent. One of the issues that arises for determination is whether, upon the true construction of section 20(8A) of TMA, an application to a Special Commissioner for consent may be made by an inspector only if it has been authorised by an order of the Board of the Inland Revenue itself, or whether it is sufficient that the application be authorised by an officer to whom the Board has delegated the requisite power. But before I come to the issues in more detail, I need to set the scene.
2. Ulster Bank Limited ("UBL") is a wholly owned subsidiary of National Westminster Bank Plc. Its principal activity is that of deposit-taking. As part of its internal accounting mechanism, a "Sundry Parties' Account" was operated at each of its branches. This is an account through which may be passed isolated transactions with parties who may or may not be customers of the bank, or who may or may not have accounts at the branch. All branches of the bank will have a Sundry Parties' Account to record transactions which are not or cannot be dealt with through specific named accounts. UBL is not under investigation itself, and the Revenue is seeking information about other taxpayers whose transactions were passed through Sundry Parties' Accounts. It is accepted by the Revenue that such accounts can have entirely proper banking purposes. They can, however, be used as a means of facilitating fraud. This is because it is difficult to trace money transactions that pass through such accounts. The Revenue does not suggest that UBL has been complicit in a tax fraud. But it is of the opinion that sundry parties' accounts have been used by individuals for the purpose of serious fraud. The investigation which is the subject of these proceedings has the aim of unravelling these frauds.
3. The history of the attempts by the Revenue to extract documents from UBL under section 20 of TMA is complex. It is unnecessary to examine it in detail. The relevant investigations started in 1995. In November 1997, the Revenue gave UBL a notice in relation to 6 named branches. That notice was challenged in judicial review proceedings on the grounds that it was oppressive. These proceedings were compromised and settlement agreements were reached. The first of these agreements dealt with the existing notice in relation to the 6 branches. The second, the so-called "New Notice Agreement" dated 18 September 1998, dealt with the procedure to be followed if the Revenue wished to give UBL a new notice ...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
TVDANMARK 1 Ltd, R (on the application of) v Independent Television Commission, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, September 08, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 389
1
CO 3036/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
08 September 2000
B e f o r e
Mr JACK BEATSON Q.C.
Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
THE QUEEN
v
INDEPENDENT TELEVISION COMMISSION
EX PARTE TVDANMARK 1 LIMITED
- - - - - - - - - -
(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 P LEAVER QC, MS E GLOSTER QC (For Judgment) and MR A CHOO-CHOY appeared on behalf of the Appellant
MS E APPLEBY QC AND MR J MOFFETT (instructed by Simmons & Simmons, London EC2M) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
- - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Mr JACK BEATSON Q.C.
The Applicant, TVDanmark 1 ("TVD"), is a television broadcaster established in the United Kingdom, holding a satellite television licence granted to it under Part 1 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 by the Independent Television Commission (the "ITC"). On 5 June this year acquired the exclusive rights to televise the five World Cup 2002 away matches of the Danish national football team live into Denmark from UFA Sports GmbH ("UFA"), a German company for Danish Kroner 3.35 million per match.
On 5 July TVD applied, as it was required to by section 101B(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1996, to the ITC for the ITC's consent to TVD's broadcast of these matches exclusively live into Denmark. On 17 August 2000 the ITC refused to give its consent and on 22 August 2000 TVD applied for permission to move for the judicial review of the ITC's decision.
The application for permission came before me on Friday 1st September, the day before the first match was to be played. Evidence was filed on behalf of the applicant by Mr Lund, its Managing Director, and on behalf of the ITC, by Mr Johnson, Head of Programme Policy at the ITC, the official responsible for the handling of TVD's application. The ITC did not resist the granting of permission, which was granted and, in view of the urgency, I heard the substantive application.
Section 101B(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1996 was inserted into the Act by the Television Broadcast Regulations 2000 S.I. 2000 No. 54 in order to implement the 1997 amendments to the 1989 Television without Frontiers Directive, Council Directive 89/552/EEC, contained in Directive 97/36/EC, and in particular the new Article 3a(3) concerning broadcasts of designated events to another Member State. In certain circumstances, including this case, such broadcasts are prohibited without the consent of the ITC. TVD's request was the first one for consent under section 101B. As will be seen, its provisions differ from those governing consent by the ITC in respect of United Kingdom domestic listed events.
TVD's legal challenge stems from the way the Statutory Code on Sports and other Listed Events was revised to incorporate the provisions of the Directive. In the case of consents to United Kingdom domestic listed events the criteria in the Code are concerned with whether broadcasters have had a genuine opportunity to acquire the rights in question on fair and reasonable terms. Although the Directive and section 101B(1) are concerned with the "exercise" of rights by a broadcaster, the new paragraph 26 of the Code dealing with consents in respect of broadcasts to another Member State states that it will take into account similar criteria to those applicable to United Kingdom domestic listed events. At the core of this case is whether the fact that TVD purchased its exclusive rights in the course of an auction in which other broadcasters, including DR and TV2, the Danish public broadcasters, participated meant that consent should have been granted as it probably would in a purely domestic case, or whether, having acquired the rights, TVD should have offered them to the Danish public broadcasters. Mr Leaver Q.C. on behalf of TVD submitted that there is no legal basis in the Directive, the 1996 Act or the Code for the ITC's request that TVD offer the rights they acquired to DR and TV2. TVD also claimed to have a legitimate expectation that the ITC would grant consent in accordance with the criteria stated to be relevant in the Code and, as a minimum, should have been given clear notice that the ITC was minded to apply different criteria.
The legislative and regulatory framework
The rules governing the broadcasting of sporting and other events of national interest are...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Wiggins, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport & Regions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 21, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 436
Case No: CO/1971/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Thursday 21 December 2000
b e f o r e :
THE HON. MR JUSTICE COLLINS
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 , Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr. Christopher Katkowski QC and Mr. David Forsdick (Lake Lapthorne, Holbrook House, 14 Great Queen street, London, WC2B 5DG) For the appellants
Mr. Timothy Corner (The Treasury Solicitor, Queen Ann's Chambers, 28 Broadway, London, SW1H 9JS) For the Respondent
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice COLLINS: This is an appeal under s.289 of the Town an Country Planning Act 1990 by Cecil Wiggins and Wiggins transport Ltd. whereby they seek to quash an enforcement notice which was substantially upheld by an inspector on 8 May 2000 follo...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Khan & Anor, R (on the application of) v London Borough Of Newham, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 19, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 334
Case No: CO/0213/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Wednesday 19 April 2000
be f o r e :
THE HON MR JUSTICE COLLINS
__________________________________
__________________________________
(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 Jan LUBA instructed by the Aina Khan Partnership for the Applicant
Mr D MATTHIAS instructed by the Solictor to Newham Council for the Respondent
__________________________________
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice COLLINS:
The applicants are sisters. In October 1991 their mother, Mrs Inayat Begum, became tenant under an assured shorthold of a three bedroom house in Plaistow. The applicants lived with her. Each was married and had children. Unfortunately, one of Ruksana's daughters, Neelofar, suffers from learning difficulties and so needs special tuition. In addition, Mrs Begum is unwell, suffering from diabetes, loss of memory and some physical mobility problems. She requires attention because of her health problems and Farzana was in receipt of an invalid care allowance for taking care of her mother.
Housing benefit was claimed by Mrs Begum and, for the purposes of that benefit, the household was considered to comprise herself and each applicant, her husband and child or children. In April 1999 the owner of the premises served notice seeking possession. Since the owner required possession to enable her to live in the premises, possession had to be given. There was no defence. Possession proceedings were commenced in September 1999 and on 12 November 1999 an order of possession was granted by the judge at Bow County Court. This required Mrs Begum to give possession on 10 December 1999.
On 8 November 1999 Ruksana attended Plaistow South Housing Office to apply for housing assistance. She explained that possession proceedings were due to be heard shortly and told the officer who lived in the house. The officer advised her that she, her sister and her mother were each likely to be in priority need and that, if an application under the homelessness provisions were made on behalf of all, there would be a need for a 5 bedroom house and that would mean a very long wait since such premises were rarely available. If individual applications were made, the situation would be much easier since two or three bedroom properties were more readily available. On 2 December 1999, following the making of the possession order, both applicants went to the Housing Office. They were interviewed. According to the housing officer, they elected to make separate applications and their mother was included on Ruksana's; this was, so the housing officer states, at their request. It is perhaps hardly surprising having regard to the advice that had been given to Ruksana on 8 November. The reality is that the family was placed in an impossible dilemma. If they decided to stick together, they would get no accommodation for a substantial period of time. If they wanted accommodation within a reasonable time, they ...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Dinev & Ors, R (on the application of) v City of Westminster Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 24, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 407
Case No: CO/1096/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 24th October 2000
B e f o r e :
THE HON MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY
THE QUEEN
ON THE APPLICATION OF
(1) Mr. Jivko Dinev (2) Mr. Dritan Duro (3) Mr. Petrit Gorovelli
(4) Mr. Anthony Graham (5) Ms. Svetlana Jemeljanova (6) Ms. Galina Kirk
(7) Mr. Iordan Kirtchev (8) Mr. Walery Martynchyk (9) Ms. Rebecca Newman
(10) Mr. William Robinson (11) Mr. Igor Romanko (12) Mr. Ilham Safarli
(13) Mr. Igor Slaouk (14) Mr. Elidon Veshi (15) Ms. Olga Yatchmenkova and
(16) Mr. Paolo Zeminian
v.
THE CITY OF WESTMINSTER COUNCIL
-------------------------
Mr. Jonathan Miller (instructed by Bow and Shore) appeared for the Applicants
Mr. Timothy Spencer (instructed by The City of Westminster) appeared for the Respondents
J U D G M E N T As Approved b...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Lewis, R (On The Application Of) v Prosetists & Orthotists Board, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 18, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 450
CO/4278/2000
[2000] EWHC 450 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(ADMINISTRATIVE COURT)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Monday, 18th December 2000
B e f o r e:
MR JUSTICE HUNT
- - - - - - -
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF
JULIUS LEWIS
-v-
THE PROSTHETISTS AND ORTHOTISTS 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 N BROWN (instructed by Willcox Lane Clutterbuck, 55 ...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
Ministry Of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food v Pitt, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 27, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 310
- 1 -
Case No: CO/4606/99
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM CROWN OFFICE
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Monday 27 March 2000
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE SCHIEMANN
MR. JUSTICE ASTILL
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(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 LLOYD JONES (instructed by Solicitor to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the Appellant)
MAURICE SHERIDAN (instructed by Messrs. Wilsons, Salisbury, for the Respondent)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Schiemann:
2
This is a prosecutor's appeal by way of case stated from a decision of magistrates. It raises a point of general significance to egg producers in relation to the marks which may be affixed to eggs and their boxes referring to the day of laying. The magistrates have held that a mark stating "laid between 21 - 23rd. October is...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
M, Re Section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 04, 2000, [2000] EWHC 642 (Admin)
SMITH BERNAL
CO 1484/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(CROWN OFFICE LIST)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Thursday, 4th May 2000
B e f o r e:
MR JUSTICE BURTON
- - - - - - - - - - - -
IN THE MATTER OF G. M.
-v-
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 3 OF THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1983
- - - - - - - - - - - -
(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 KEVIN MUSAHEB (instructed by Peter Edwards & Co, Hoylake, Wirral, CH47 2AE) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
MR ANDREW HOCKTON (instructed by David Tysoe, Solicitor, Matlock, Derbyshire DE4 3AG) appeared on behalf of the Derbyshire County Council and Ms Donaghy.
MR HUW LLOYD (instructed by Beachcroft Wansbroughs, Sheffield S10 2G2) appeared on behalf of the Community Health Services
(North Derbyshire) NHS Trust.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N TThursday, 4th May 2000
JUDGMENT
1. MR JUSTICE BURTON: This is an application for leave to issue a writ of habeas corpus brought on behalf of G.M. who is presently a mental patient at the Hartington Wing of the Royal Hospital, Chesterfield in Derbyshire. He has an unfortunate medical history of which the medical practitioners involved in this case had a considerable knowledge. 2. The approved social worker, however, Mrs Elizabeth Donaghy had only indirect knowledge of Mr M.'s mental state from some two weeks prior to his admission, as a result of a discussion with those who have been involved with his care, and she herself had not met Mr M.. Nevertheless, as I have indicated, she was armed with knowledge about him and in particular knowledge of the circumstances which in April of this year had heightened the concerns of those involved with his care, parti...
[/align]
-
[align=left]
London Electricity Plc, R (on the application of) v Director General Of Electricity Supply, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 15, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 340
19
Case No: CO/1582 /99
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Monday 15 May 2000
B e f o r e :
Mr Justice Harrison
THE QUEEN
V
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY Respondent
Ex parte
LONDON ELECTRICITY plc Applicants
__________________________________
(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)
__________________________________
Richard Field QC and Nigel Giffin - for the Applicants
(Instructed by Herbert Smith Solicitors)
Kenneth Parker QC and Mark Shaw - for the Respondent
(Instructed by Treasury Solicitor)
__________________________________
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Introduction
This is an application for judicial review of a determination made on behalf of the respondent, the Director General of Electricity Supply ("the Director General"), by Mr Saunders, who is the Director of Regulation and Business Affairs at the Office of Electricity Regulation ("Offer"). The determination was made on 27 January 1999 with reasons given later on 7 April 1999. The determination was that the charge which the applicant, a public electricity supplier, might properly require Mrs Elnaugh to pay for an upgraded supply of electricity to her home was zero.
Mrs Elnaugh is a resident of Mitcham Garden Village ("the Village"). The Village consists of some 88 dwellings which are all owned by the Mitcham Garden Village Trust ("the Trust") which is a register...
[/align]
