England and Wales High Court of Justice

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Montana, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 23, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 421


Case No: C/2000/0386

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HON. MR. JUSTICE TURNER
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Thursday 23 November 2000.

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE SCHIEMANN
LORD JUSTICE TUCKEY
and
SIR SWINTON THOMAS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

(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 Dinah Rose (instructed by Liberty) for the Appellant
Robin Tam (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor London SW1H 9JS) for the Respondent

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

Crown Copyright ©

Introduction. This is the judgment of the court. The case raises the question whether the policy adopted by the Secretary of State for exercising a statutory discretion to register a child as a British citizen is unlawful. It arises on appeal from Turner J. who decided that it was not when dismissing the Appellant, Mario Montana's application for judicial review of the Secretary of State's refusal to register his son Julian as a British citizen. The Judge also rejected the Appellant's contention that the Secretary of State's decisi...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Friend & National Assembly For Wales Newport Borough Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 18, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 332

28

Case No: CO/2265/99
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
SITTING AT SWANSEA CROWN COURT
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, LONDON, WC2A 2LL

Tuesday 18th April 2000

Before:

THE HON.MR JUSTICE TURNER
-----------------------------

DENNIS FRIEND

And

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES

NEWPORT BOROUGH COUNCIL

-----------------------------
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2HD
Tel No: 0171 421 4040 , Fax No: 0171 831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
-----------------------------
Mr Rupert Warren (instructed by Miss J. Johnstone Rubin Lewis O'Brian, Solicitors, South Wales NP44 1PL for the Applicant)
Mr David Forsdick (instructed by Treasury Solicitors for the 1st Respondent)
2nd Respondent not represented
-----------------------------
Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Mr Justice TURNER:
1. This is a statutory appeal from the decision of an inspector who dismissed three appeals which had been brought before him by the applicant. Those appeals were brought against the service of three enforcement notices served on the applicant by the respondent Borough Council in respect of what was alleged to have been three breaches of planning control by the applicant as the owner of land and buildings at Trinco House, Penhow, Newport. The three notices have throughout been referred to as A, B and C and related to separate aspects of the applicant's conduct on his land. Thus:
1. Notice A, alleged the change of use to a dwelling house without planning permission of a building formerly used for pleasure purposes;
2. Notice B, alleged the erection of a building and lamp standards, without planning permission;
3. Notice C, alleged a change of use of agricultural land to use as residential curtilage.
2. The proceedings had commenced as the result of the service by the Newport Borough Council ('the Council') of three enforcement notices which not only had required discontinuance of the non-permitted use but also reinstatement of the three separate pieces of, what was claimed to have been, unauthorised development. The applicant appealed against all three notices and relied upo...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Isle Of Wight Council, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Trade & Industry & Ors, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 07, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 322

2






IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Case no: CO/4077/99
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2

Friday 7 April 2000
Before:
The Hon Mr Justice Newman
__________________________________


THE QUEEN

- and -

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
THE MINISTRY OF CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

Respondents
- ex parte -

THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL
Applicant
----------------
(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 Lever QC and Hugh Mercer instructed by Sharpe Pritchard, Solicitors for the Applicant
Christopher Vajda QC and Stephen Morris instructed by The Treasury Solicitor, for the Respondents
----------------
Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©







The Hon Mr Justice Newman


The applicant, the Isle of Wight Council, seeks judicial review of two measures taken by the respondents containing proposals by the United Kingdom Government (the Government) to the Commission of the European Communities (the Commission) for the classification of areas within the United Kingdom for the purposes of

(a) the grant by the Government of a form of national state aid known as regional selective assistance (RSA), ("the Assisted Areas Proposal") and
(b) the grant by the Commission of assistance, also made available on a regional basis, from the structural funds of the European Community (EC) ("the Objective 2 Proposals").

The proposals were published in the name of the Departments for which each of the Respondent members are responsible. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry acted as the lead minister in submitting the proposals to the Commission.

The Government's proposals for RSA were contained in "the Government's proposals for new assisted areas dated l5 July l999. The Government's proposals for structural funds were contained in the document entitled "EU Structural Funds: the UK Government's Proposals for New Objective 2 areas" dated 8 October l999.

THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR RSA
The Government exercises power in connection with RSA pursuant to the Industrial Development Act l982 (the Act) and in particular Section l, which provides

"S.1(1) For the purposes of this Act, and any other enactment referring to the development areas or intermediate areas under this Act, the Secretary of State may by order specify any area of Great Britain as -

(a) a development area, or
(b) an intermediate area."
(2) ..........
(3) ..........
(4) ..........
The legal framework of the Act for the provision of financial assistance for industry in assisted areas is set out in Sections 7 and 8. Section 7 provides:

"S.7:
(1) For the purposes set out in the following provisions of this section the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, provide financial assistance where, in his opinion -

(a) the financial assistance is likely to provide, maintain or safeguard employment in any part of the assisted area; and

(b) the undertakings for which the assistance is provided are or will be wholly or mainly in the assisted areas.

(2) The purposes mentioned in sub-section l above are -

(a) to promote the development or modernisation of an industry;

(b) to promote the efficiency of an industry;
(c) to create, expand or sustain productive capacity in ...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
M, R (on the application of) v Ashworth Special Hospital Trust, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, September 28, 2000, [2000] EWHC 644 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL
CO/4563/1999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(THE CROWN OFFICE LIST)

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2

Thursday 28th September 2000

B e f o r e:

MR JUSTICE JACKSON

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

REGINA

-v-

THE ASHWORTH SPECIAL HOSPITAL TRUST

EX PARTE COLONEL M

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

MISS FENELLA MORRIS (instructed by HOGANS SOLICITORS, 10 STATION ROAD, RAINHILL, MERSEYSIDE, L35 OLP) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.

MR GREGORY CHAMBERS (instructed by REID MINTY SOLICITORS, LONDON WIX 9HZ) appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T1. MR JUSTICE JACKSON: This judgment is in four parts, namely: part 1, introduction; part 2, the background facts and statutory context; part 3, the four challenges to Ashworth Hospital's Seclusion Procedure; part 4, conclusion.
Part 1: Introduction 2. The applicant is a patient detained at Ashworth Special Hospital pursuant to section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The applicant has been at Ashworth Hospital since March 1994. From time to time the applicant has been placed in seclusion at Ashworth Hospital as a result of behavioural problem...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Pelling, R (on the application of) v Bow County Court, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 19, 2000, [2001] ACD 1,[2000] EWHC 636 (Admin),[2001] UKHRR 165

SMITH BERNAL
CO/4774/1999
BAILII Citation Number: [2000] EWHC 636 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London WC2

Date: Thursday, 19th October 2000

B e f o r e:

LORD JUSTICE BUXTON

and

MR JUSTICE PENRY-DAVEY

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

THE QUEEN

ON THE APPLICATION OF

MICHAEL JOHN PELLING


-v-


BOW COUNTY COURT

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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)

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

The applicant appeared in person

MESSRS P SALES & A CHOUDHURY (instructed by Treasury Solicitors, Queen Anne's Chambers, 28 Broadway, London, SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
JUDGMENT
1. LORD JUSTICE BUXTON: In these proceedings for judicial review the applicant, Dr Pelling, principally seeks to have declared ultra vires certain rules in the Civil Procedure Rules and certain parts of the Practice Directions issued under those rules. Dr Pelling's attention was drawn to the matters of which he complains by certain practices at the Bow County Court, but it is important to note that the relief that he seeks in these proceedings is directed at the generality of the rules and practice directions underlying those practices and not, save in one respect, which I shall come at the end of this judgment, at the practices at that court themselves.
2. There are a number of preliminary matters that I must deal with before I come to the substance of the case: (1) The case was estimated to last for one day. That was an estimate that even if not made by Dr Pelling, he concurred in to the extent of recording it at the beginning of his skeleton argument, and the case was accordingly listed and other cases today equally listed on that assumption. The case was listed to come on at 12 noon yesterday and was called on at that hour. Dr Pelling had not then arrived in court, owing to transport difficulties which he properly explained to us later, but was able to commence his submissions at 12.30. At 4.15 yesterday we told him that the court would sit today at 10 o'clock but that he must conclude his oral submissions by 11.30; that is to say, allowing him over four hours of court time to address us. Dr Pelling indicated that that would cause him difficulty. However, we bore...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
C, R (on the application of) v London South and South West Region, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 21, 2000, [2000] EWHC 637 (Admin)

CO/4092/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL

Thursday 21st December 2000

B e f o r e

MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER

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

T H E Q U E E N

ON THE APPLICATION OF

C
Claimant

v.

MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW TRIBUNAL
LONDON SOUTH AND SOUTH WEST REGION
Defendant

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Computer Aided Transcription of the Stenograph Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG Tel: 020 7404 1400 020 7404 1400
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR STEPHEN SIMBLET (instructed by Jacqueline Everett & Co, London SW16 6JF) appeared on behalf of the Claimant.
MR DAVID FORSDICK (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Defendant.

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

J U D G M E N TSMITH BERNAL
1. MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: The single issue raised in this application is whether the Mental Health Review Tribunal (``the tribunal'') is in breach of Article 5(4) of the European Convention of Human Rights (``ECHR''), which provides:
``Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention should be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.'' 2. The claimant, to whom I shall refer as C, was detained under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (``the 1983 Act'') on 16th October 2000. He immediately applied to the tribunal for discharge and in accordance with current practice his case was listed for hearing eight weeks later, on 11th December. His submission is that eight weeks is too long a period and is contrary to Article 5(4), which requires the lawfulness of his decision to be decided speed...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Metropolitan Borough of Wirral, R (on the application of) v The Chief Schools Adjudicator, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 14, 2000, [2000] EWHC 635 (Admin),[2001] ELR 574

SMITH BERNAL
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CO/3642/2000
BAILII Citation Number: [2000] EWHC 635 (Admin)
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(ADMINISTRATIVE COURT)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2

Date: Thursday, 14th December 2000
B e f o r e:

MR JUSTICE OUSELEY

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

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF

METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF WIRRAL

-v-

THE CHIEF SCHOOLS ADJUDICATOR

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(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 MR C BEAR and MR N GIFFIN (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard, as Agents for PG Manson, Borough Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.

MR C LEWIS and MR T PITT-PAYNE (instructed by Treasury Solicitor, Queen Anne's Chambers, 28 Broadway, London SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
1. MR JUSTICE OUSELEY: Wirral Borough Metropolitan Council is the claimant in these proceedings and is the local education authority for the Wirral. Within its area, state sector secondary education is provided at six grammar schools and 17 all-ability schools. The grammar schools account for approximately 20 per cent of the total number of places. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (``Wirral''), as the admissions authority, determines admission arrangements for two of the grammar schools which are community schools and for the 14 community all-ability schools. Two of the other grammar schools are foundation schools (ex-grant maintained) and set their own admission arrangements. However, the community and foundation grammar schools' admissions are managed jointly by Wirral. The remaining two grammar schools, as well as three of the all-ability schools, are Roman Catholic aided schools which set and conduct their own admissions arrangements. However, by agreement, the Authority at present exercises a co-ordinating role in relation to admissions for all of these schools. 2. For admissions for the academic year starting 2001, Wirral determined that its approach would be that selection tests for grammar schools would precede the expression by parents of their preference as to the state sector secondary school for their children. This approach was agreed with those with whom Wirral co-ordinates arrangements and those whose admission arrangments it manages. The purpose of doing things that way round was to enable parents to have a much better idea of whether their children would obtain a grammar school place when they first expressed their preference for a grammar school. Armed with that knowledge, a parent of a child who had failed to obtain the requisite standard for entry to the grammar school could select as his or her first preference one of the six over-subscribed, more popular state all-ability schools. Without that knowledge, a parent of a child who had chosen a grammar school as fi...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Parkyn, R (on the application of) v Restormel Borough Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 19, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 344

1


Case no: CO/1406/2000 & CO/1425/2000
IN THE high court of justice
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
CROWn OFFICE

Royal Courts of justice
Strand, London, wc2a 2ll

Wednesday 13th September 2000
Before:

Mr George bartlett qc
(Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Queen's Bench Division)
-------------------

Regina
V
Restormel Borough Council ex parte Parkyn

-and-

Regina
V
Restormel Borough council ex parte Corbett
____________________
(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 c katKowski qc and Mr j Maurici (Instructed by Sharpe Pritchard, London, WC1V 6HG) appeared on behalf of the Applicant Parkyn

mr j LittoN (Instructed by Russel Jones & Walker Solicitors London, WC1X 8NH) appeared on behalf of the Applicant Corbett

mr g roots qc and Mr r taylor (Instructed by Stephens & Scown St Austell, Cornwall, PL25 5DR) appeared on behalf of Land and Property Limited, an interested party
____________________

Judgment
(As Approval by the Court)

Crown Copyright


Mr George Bartlett QC:
The claimants in this case, both councillors of Restormel Borough Council, seek by judicial review to challenge four decisions of the council as local planning authority. Councillor Parkyn does so on behalf of the council itself, Councillor Corbett in a private capacity. Three of the decisions are grants of planning permission, and the fourth relates to an agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, on parts of the Victoria Business Park at Roche in Cornwall. The purpose of the challenge is to relieve the council of the obligation to pay compensation to the landowners in consequence of an order made by the Secretary of the State for the Environment Transport and the Regions modifying one of the permissions. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted to Councillor Parkyn by Sullivan J on 19 May 2000 and to Councillor Corbett by Forbes J on 30 June 2000 after Collins J had refused permission on paper.
Victoria Business Park
Victoria Business Park comprises about 20 hectares of land lying in otherwise generally open country on the south side of the A30 trunk road 3 kilometres west of the Bodmin bypass and 7 kilometres to the east of the Indian Queens bypass on a single carriageway section of the road. The village of Roche lies about 1.5 kilometres to the south. The nearest town are Bodmin, St Austell, Newquay and Truro. The Business Park has been developed on land formerly known as Penstraze Farm, which was bought by a company called ML Real Estate Ltd in, I think, the 1970s. It has been developed in a piecemeal manner from then onwards. Initially a number of planning permissions were granted for the erection of factory/workshop units. Then in October 1986 permissions were granted for retail (non-food bulky items) and warehouse development on part of the site. It appears that the retail element (50,000 sq ft) was included to give a high value use to make the site more attractive to developers. Overall there have been numerous applications and permissions covering B1 (business), B2 (general industrial) and B8 (storage/distribution) as well as retail and other uses. Four of these permissions (including the three which are the subject of these proceedings) are of particular relevance.
The planning permissions
On 12 November 1990 permission ("the 1990 permission") was granted to ML Real Estates Ltd for the "Erection of non-food retail units with associated car parking, etc.". The amount of retail floor space was 195,000 square feet. The site was a roughly square area which formed the central area of the business park and was bounded on three of its sides by what the plan showed as the internal estate road. The permission was a full permission with the standard 5-year time limit on commencement. Among the conditions imposed was the following:
"11. The total floorspace to be used for non food retail shall not exceed 125,000 sq ft comprising a maximum number of five units which shall not be sub-divided but shall be occupied by a single non food retail operator."
An agreement made under section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 between the council, ML Real Estate Ltd as owners, the mortgagees, and the contracting purchaser of the land, contained a similar provision. The application had been referred to the Secretary of State for the Environment as a departure from the development plan, but it was not called in despite the fact that there was an objection to it by Cornwall County Council. On 5 January 1994 a permission was granted on an application made in 1993 for "Extension of time limit of Decision ... dated 12/11/90 for erection of non-food retail units with associated car parking etc." The applicants were Ernst & Young, receivers for ML Real Estate Ltd, which was then in receivership. Although the p...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
McNally, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Education & Employment, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 27, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 380

2

McNally
CO/2182/1999

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

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL


Date: 27th 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, 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 E. Grey (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor for the Respondent)
Mr T. Straker QC (instructed by Messrs Stanley Monaghan for the Metropolitan Borough of Bury)
Miss. A. Weston (instructed by Messrs Thompsons for the Applicant)

Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright


INTRODUCTION
This is a difficult case which has rightly given rise to serious concern on the part of the Applicant, a teacher, the Governors of the School (Woodhey High School) at which he worked, the local Education Authority, the Metropolitan Borough of Bury in which the School is situated and the Respondent Secretary of State.

BACKGROUND The Applicant has taught at the School for several years. In 1995 an...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Russell, R (On The Application Of) v Secretary Of State For Home Department & Ors, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 10, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 366





B e f o r e

MR JUSTICE LIGHTMAN

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

and

(1) THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
(2) THE GOVERNOR OF HMP FRANKLAND
(3) THE GOVERNOR OF HMP FULL SUTTON
Respondents

ex parte

ANDREW RUSSELL
Applicant
_________
(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)
_________
Ms Phillippa Kaufmann (Instructed by Messrs Bhatt Murphy, 23 Pitfield Street, London N1 6HB) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
Miss Alison Foster (Instructed by the Treasury Solicitor, Queen Anne's Chambers, 28 Broadway, London SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the Respondents.



Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©








INTRODUCTION 1. This is an application by Mr Russell (pursuant to permission g...
[/align]