England and Wales High Court of Justice

[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]

Year 2001
Year 2001

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Baker v Secretary Of State For Environment, Transport & Regions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 23, 2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 585



Case No: CO/3226/2000
[2001] EWHC Admin 39
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINSTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Friday 26th January 2001

B e f o r e :

THE HONOURABLE 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 Robert Fookes for the Claimants)
(Mr Timothy Corner for the Defendants)

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

JUDGMENT


(As approved by the Court)















Mr Justice Elias :
Background.
1. This is an appeal under section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ("the 1990 Act") against the decision of an Inspector appointed by the First Defendant, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, in which the Inspector dismissed the Appellants' appeal against an enforcement notice served by the second defendant, the North Wiltshire District Council, the local planning authority. 2. The enforcement...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Clingham, R (on the application of) v Marylebone Magistrates Court, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 18, 2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 582



Case No: CO/4441/2000

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION - DIVISIONAL COURT)
ON APPEAL FROM David Kennett Brown D.J.
sitting as a magistrate
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Thursday 11th January 2001

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE SCHIEMANN
MR. JUSTICE POOLE


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


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(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. FRASER (instructed by Peter Kandler & Co Solicitors, 60Golborne Road, London, W10 5PR) for the Appellant.
MR, R. BANWELL (instructed by Director of Legal Services, Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea, Town Hall, Hornton Street, London, W8 7N8) for the Respondent.

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

Judgment As Approved by the...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Payne, R (on the application of) v Caerphilly County Borough Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 04, 2002, [2002] EWHC 866 (Admin),[2002] 17 EG 155,[2002] PLCR 25

SMITH BERNAL
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 866 (Admin)
CO/3891/2001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT)


Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2

Date Friday, 4th April 2002


B e f o r e:

MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN

- - - - - - -

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF CLIVE PAYNE

-v-

CAERPHILLY COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL

- - - - - - -

(Computer-aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited,
190 Fleet Street,
London EC4A 2AG
Telephone No: 020-7421 4040 020-7421 4040
Fax No: 020-7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

- - - - - - -

The Claimant appeared in person.

MR JARMAN (instructed by the Legal Department of Caerphilly County Court) appeared on behalf of the Defendant.


J U D G M E N T
Introduction
1. MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN: This application for judicial review is concerned with the manner in which the Defendant Council dealt with an application for approval of conditions (the application) made by the claimant under the Environment Act 1995 (the 1995 Act).
The facts
2. The application, dated 15th December 2000, was in the following terms (so far as material for present purposes):
``1. The mineral site to which this application relates is the land at Nelson Road, Senghenydd, Caerphilly formerly the tipping ground of the Universal and Windsor Collieries, more particularly delineated on the map or plan enclosed and attached to this application and edged in red on that map or plan.
2. The APPLICANT is the owner of the land described above and delineated on the map or plan attached to this application.
3. The 'RELEVANT PLANNING PERMISSIONS' relating to the site are as follows-
(a) The permission granted by the Caerphilly Urban District Council to the National Coal Board on the 30th day of MARCH 1955 [Code Number 1722]; and
(b) The permission granted by the Caerphilly Urban District Council to Mr Cyril James Ludlow on the 10th day of August 1961 [Code Number 4240].
4:THE CONDITIONS TO WHICH THE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE PERMISSIONS REFERRED TO SHOULD BE SUBJECT.
PERMISSION (a)
Conditions
1. Any buildings or works authorised by this permission shall be removed, and any use of the land authorised by this permission shall be discontinued, not later than the 22 FEBRUARY 2024. 2. The materials to be disposed of on the s...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
La Rocca, R (on the application of) v Social Security Commissioner & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 11, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2021 (Admin)


Case No: CO/5339/2001
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 2021 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Friday, 11th October 2002

Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE LIGHTMAN

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG Tel No: 020 7421 4...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Wilkinson v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 25, 2002, [2002] STI 234,[2002] STC 347,[2002] BTC 97,[2002] EWHC 182 (Admin)


Case No: CO/970/2001
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 182 Admin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL

Thursday 14th February 2002
B e f o r e :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOSES

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


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(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 and Mr. Philip Baker (instructed by Liberty for the Claimant)

Mr. Timothy Brennan QC and Miss Ingrid Simler (instructed by the Solicitor of Inland Revenue for the Defendant)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©


Mr Justice Moses:

INTRODUCTION

The claimant is a widower whose wife died on 23 June 1999. By letter dated 13 November 2000, he claimed from the Inland Revenue a sum equivalent to Widow's Bereavement Allowance. He described it as a "widower's bereavement payment". Under Section 262 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 ("ICTA") an allowance known as Widow's Bereavement Allowance ("WBA") is available to a widow for the year of assessment in which her husband dies, and the following year. Section 262 makes no express provision for any equivalent reduction in income tax to widowers. By Section 34 of the Finance Act 1999 WBA was abolished in relation to deaths occurring on or after 6 April 2000.
This claim raises issues similar to those raised in the applications of Hooper, Withey and others. Although I heard argument before hearing that case, I have drafted this judgment after drafting the judgment in that case. This judgment should be ...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Leung v Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 05, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1358 (Admin)



Case No: CO/4939/2001
NEUTRAL CITATION NUMBER: [2002] EWHC 1358 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL

Friday 5 July 2002
B e f o r e :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SILBER

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


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(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. Richard McManus QC and Mr. Adam Solomon (instructed by Hugh Cartwright and Amin for the Claimant)
Mr. Timothy Ward (instructed by Mills & Reeve of Cambridge for the Defendant)

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

Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©




Mr Justice Silber:

Introduction

Wing Kew Leung ("the claimant") challenges the decision of Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine ("the college") to classify him as an overseas student, rather than as a home student, for the purpose of the Education (Fees and Awards) Regulations 1997 ("the Regulations"). The significance of that classification is that the Regulations permit certain educational institutions, including the college, to charge higher fees for those students, who have been classified as overseas students rather than home students under the Regulations. Those who are regarded as home students for fee charging purposes include those who are settled in the United Kingdom and who also meet the residence conditions in Paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 of the Regulations.

A condition in Paragraph 9 of the Schedule of the Regulations, which is of central and crucial significance in determining the status of the claimant in this case, provides that a person meets the residence conditions in Paragraph 9 which, with my emphasis added, provides that:-

"(b) [the student's] residence in the United Kingdom.. has not during any part of [the three year period preceding the relevant date].. been wholly or mainly for the purpose of receiving full-time education".

The Regulations make it clear that "the relevant date" for determining a student's status for classification of the fee purposes is 1 September, 1 January or 1 April, closest to the beginning of the first term of the student's course (Regulation 4(6)). In the case of the claimant, it is common ground between the parties that first, the relevant date for determining his status was 1 September 2000 and second, that his fee paying classification for the duration of his course was settled once and for all by the determination of his status as on that date. Mr. McManus QC, who appears with Mr. Adam Solomon for the claimant, says that if the claimant had been classified as a home student rather than as an overseas student, he would have saved about £9,000 in each year of his course at the college. In order to understand the rival submissions, it is necessary now to set out in outline some of the relevant chronology leading up to the making of this application.

The Chronology

The claimant was born in Hong Kong in December 1980. He, together with the rest of his family, was granted British citizenship in May 1995, which was the year when his parents left the United Kingdom where they had worked since 1972 in order to return to Hong Kong. They retained their property in London at 33 College Road, Wembley, which was occupied by the claimant's aunt. The parents of the claimant retained contact with the United Kingdom and they visited this country every summer. The claimant's older brother Yu Kew Leung ("Yu") left Hong Kong to live in the United Kingdom in August 1990 and in May 1995, he became permanently settled in this country.

In August 1995, when the claimant was fourteen, he left Hong Kong where he had previously been at school to come to the United Kingdom, where he enrolled in September 1995 at Merchant Taylor's School in Northwood as a boarder. Shortly after the claimant arrived in this country, his parents purchased a house in Northwood ("the Northwood house"), which was occupied by Yu, the claimant and his aunt, who was also the claimant's guardian. Although he lived very close to Merchant Taylor's School, he has explained that he was a boarder there because his parents were keen for him to experience communal life.
In 1996, Yu commenced a three-year Biochemistry degree course at the college and he was class...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
N, R (on the application of) v M & Ors, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, September 24, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1911 (Admin)


Case No: CO/2516/2002
NEUTRAL CITATION NUMBER: [2002] EWHC 1911 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL

Tuesday 24 September 2002
B e f o r e :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SILBER

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



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(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. Stephen Solley QC and Mr. Kris Gledill (instructed by David Turner & Co for the claimant)
Mr. Jeremy Hyam (instructed by Capsticks for the first and second defendants)
Mr. David Forsdick (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor for the third defendant)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JudgmentSilber J:

Outline of the Case

Ms. N (``the claimant'') has been a patient at X Hospital since January 1999 and she seeks to judicially review a decision of Dr. M, a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist at X Hospital, which was to administer to the claimant depot (i.e. by injection) anti-psychotic medicine for the prevention or for the alleviation of her psychotic illness. The claimant did not and does not consent to this treatment. A challenge is also made by the claimant to the subsequent decision of Dr. O, another Consultant Psychiatrist, who acted as a Second Opinion Appointed Doctor (``SOAD'') as required by the Mental Health Act 1983 (``the Act'') and who in that capacity on 17 May 2002 authorised the administration of the proposed treatment to the claimant. The parties have asked me to continue an order made by Goldring J that in this judgment, initials should be used in place of the names of the claimant, the hospitals and doctors, other than those who acted as experts.

Goldring J gave permission to the claimant to pursue her claims for judicial review against Dr. M as the first defendant and against his employers, a Health Authority Trust (``the Trust'') as the second defendants, as well as against Dr. O, the third defendant. The claimant contends in her Claim Form that ``the SOAD has acted unfairly in reaching a decision by following a procedure which did not allow the [claimant]'s views to be fully represented'' and that ``any proposed medication of the [claimant] is unlawful and/or unreasonable, being in breach of Article 3 and/or 8 [of the European Convention on Human Rights (``the Convention'')]''. This case raises important issues of how the court should deal procedurally and substantively with challenges made by patients to decisions for their treatment against their wishes in the light of the Act as read in accordance with Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention.

The claimant relies on the evidence of a consultant psychiatrist Dr. Lock to challenge the decision of Dr. O, and the prior decision of Dr. M to require this treatment. Dr. Lock considers that the claimant has the capacity to make her decision to refuse this treatment and he believes that the case in favour of administering this proposed treatment to the claimant does not reach the required threshold for it to be permitted. The defendants dispute these contentions and they rely on the evidence of Dr. O and Dr. M, as well as that of Dr. Janet Parrott, another consultant forensic psychiatrist, who takes the view that first the claimant requires depot neuroleptic medication as she suffers from a psychotic illness and that second the claimant currently does not have the capacity to make a decision on the desirability of receiving this form of treatment. A fundamental dispute between Dr. Lock and the defendants is whether the proposed treatment is necessary for the claimant and that issue arises because Dr. Lock for the claimant disagrees with the views advocated by Drs. M, O and Parrott that the claimant is suffering from a psychotic condition.

Before considering the evidence, it is appropriate to refer to the definition of ``psychosis'' given in the American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Disorders (DSM-IV), which all parties accept as being a Recognised Specification Manual and which is that the term ``psychosis'':-

``encompasses those serious mental disorders which include schizophrenia, major depression, alcohol withdrawal delirium and others where the individual ``loses touch with reality''. Hallucinations and delusions are generally considered psychotic symptoms. The individuals experiencing them may be described as ``psychotic''''.

To appreciate the nature and scope of the dispute, it is necessary to understand the statutory provisions contained in the Act to which I now turn.

The statutory provisions

Section 63 of the Act provides, with my emphasis added, that:-
``The consent of a patient shall not be required for any medical treatment given to him for the mental disorder from which he is suffering, not being treatment fall...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Dube v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 15, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2032 (Admin)

Case No: CO/5095/2001
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 2032 Admin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL

Tuesday 15 October 2002
Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KEITH

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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 S Harrison (instructed by Winstanley Burgess) for the Claimant
Mr A Hunter (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendant

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

Crown Copyright ©


Mr Justice Keith :
Introduction 1. The Claimant comes from Zimbabwe. He is a member of the Ndebele tribe. He claims that he was persecuted as a result of his membership of a pressure group, the Umkhosi Kazulu, which seeks compensation for victims of atrocities against the Ndebele tribe in Matabeleland in the 1980s. Eventually he fled from Zimbabwe, and arrived in the United Kingdom on 13 August 2001. On his arrival, he applied for permission to enter the United Kingdom as a visitor, but when his application was refused, he claimed asylum, c...
[/align]