England and Wales High Court of Justice

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
London Borough of Croydon v Burdon, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, August 06, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1961 (Admin)

CO/2597/2002
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1961 Admin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT)
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London WC2

Tuesday 6 August 2002
B e f o r e:

HIS HONOUR JUDGE WILKIE

- - - - - - -

LONDON BOROUGH OF CROYDON


-v-


WILLIAM BURDON

- - - - - -

(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 TAYLOR (instructed by LONDON BOROUGH OF CROYDON LEGAL DEPARTMENT) appeared on behalf of the Claimant.

MR P NOBLE (instructed by WRIGHT SON & PEPPER, LONDON WC1R 5JF) appeared on behalf of the Defendant.

- - - - - -

J U D G M E N T SMITH BERNAL 1. HIS HONOUR JUDGE WILKIE: This is an appeal by way of case stated by the London Borough of Croydon as prosecuting authority against the dismissal by the Croydon Magistra...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]

London Borough of Croydon v Burdon, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, August 06, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1961 (Admin)

CO/2597/2002
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1961 Admin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT)
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London WC2

Tuesday 6 August 2002
B e f o r e:

HIS HONOUR JUDGE WILKIE

- - - - - - -

LONDON BOROUGH OF CROYDON


-v-


WILLIAM BURDON

- - - - - -

(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 TAYLOR (instructed by LONDON BOROUGH OF CROYDON LEGAL DEPARTMENT) appeared on behalf of the Claimant.

MR P NOBLE (instructed by WRIGHT SON & PEPPER, LONDON WC1R 5JF) appeared on behalf of the Defendant.

- - - - - -

J U D G M E N T SMITH BERNAL 1. HIS HONOUR JUDGE WILKIE: This is an appeal by way of case stated by the London Borough of Croydon as prosecuting authority against the dismissal by the Croydon Magistra...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Towry Law Financial Services Plc & Ors, R (on the application of) v Gorman, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 25, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1603 (Admin)

1

Case No: CO/17212002
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1603 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
48/49 Chancery Lane
London, WC2A 1JR


Thursday 25 July 2002
Before:

MR GEORGE BARTLETT QC
(sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

-------------------------
Between:
THE QUEEN

-on the application of-

TOWRY LAW FINANCIAL SERVICES PLC
Claimant
- and -

THE FINANCIAL OMBUDSMAN SERVICE LIMITED
Defendant
- and -

MRS P GORMAN
Interested Party
-------------------------
(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 Adam Tolley, Instructed by Squire & Co, appeared for the Claimant
Mr James Strachan, instructed by Georgina Surry, Financial Ombudsman Service for the Defendant.
-------------------------
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
MR GEORGE BARTLETT QC: The only outstanding issue in this application for judicial review is the question of costs. The application sought judicial review of a decision of an ombudsman in the Financial Ombudsman Service. The decision was given on a complaint by the interested party, Mrs Gorman, to the Personal Investment Authority Ombudsman Bureau (whose functions are now exercised by FOS) about advice given by the claimant to Mrs Gorman's late husband in relation to certain retirement annuity contracts. Permission was granted by Burton J on 28 May 2002. In its acknowledgment of service, filed on 1 May 2002, the defendant had said that it did not intend to contest the claim. In her acknowledgment of service, dated 5 May 2002, Mrs Gorman said that she did intend to contest the claim; but on 7 June 2002 she wrote to the court to say that she no longer intended to do so. The claimant now seeks an order that its costs should be paid by the defendant and/or by Mrs Gorman. Mrs Gorman's late husband was a ba...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Yeter, R (on the application of) v Enfield, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 29, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2185 (Admin)

Case No: CO/3216/2002
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 2185 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL

Tuesday 29th October 2002
Before :

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE RAFFERTY

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

Mr Martin Hodgson (instructed by Clinton Davis Pallis) for the Claimant
Mr Wayne Beglan (instructed by Philip Devonald) for the Defendant

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

Crown Copyright ©




Mrs Justice Rafferty : 1. Consequent ...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Phillips v Director of Public Prosecutions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 28, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2093 (Admin)

Case No: CO/3699/2001
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 2093 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL

Monday 28 October 2002
Before :

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD JUSTICE LATHAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE McCOMBE

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


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Wordwave 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)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Rhodri THOMPSON QC (instructed by Marriott, Harrison) for the Appellant
David PERRY & Natasha TAHTA (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) for the Respondent

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

Crown Copyright ©

Mr Justice McCOMBE :
1. This is an appeal by way of case stated from the decision of the Crown Court at Middle*** Guildhall wh...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Pearson, R (on the application of) v Driving and Vehicle Licensing Agency & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 06, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2482 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE
CO/1872/2002
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 2482 Admin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT LIST

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2

Date: Wednesday, 6th November 2002
B E F O R E:

MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY

- - - - - - -

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF NIGEL PEARSON
Claimant
-v-

DRIVING AND VEHICLE LICENSING AGENCY
First Defendant

and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS
Second Defendant
- - - - - - -
(Computer-Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - -
MR DAN SQUIRES (instructed by Tyndallwoods, Windsor House, Temple Row, Birmingham B2 5TS) appeared on behalf of the Claimant.
MR CLIVE LEWIS (instructed by Treasury Solicitors, Queen Anne's Chambers, London SW1h 9JS) appeared on behalf of the Defendants.
- - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
1. MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY: On 23rd January 1997 the claimant pleaded guilty to an offence of driving with excess alcohol pursuant to section 5(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. He was fined £150 and subjected to a one-year disqualification from driving. His licence was obligatorily endorsed under section 44 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. 2. The provisions of two different statutes impact on the future significance of such a c...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Hammerton, R (on the application of) v London Underground Ltd., Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 08, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2307 (Admin)



Case No: CO/3697/02
Neutral Citation No. [2002] EWHC 2307 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL

Friday, 8th November 2002
Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE OUSELEY

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

Between :

(1) ENGLISH HERITAGE
(2) THE PRINCE'S FOUNDATION
(3) LONDON BOROUGH OF TOWER HAMLETS
(4) LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY
(5) RAILTRACK PLC (in Railway Administration)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(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)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Richard Clayton QC, Mr M. Edwards & Mr C Zwart (instructed by Richard Buxton & Co. Solicitors) for the Claimant
Michael Barnes QC & Mr J. Greenhill (instructed by Frances Low Solicitor LUL) for the Defendant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©


Mr Justice OUSELEY :


Introduction

1. London Underground Ltd's East London Line currently runs from New Cross and New Cross Gate northwards to Whitechapel. LUL proposes to construct the East London Line Extension ("ELLX") to Dalston where it would connect with the former Railtrack North London Line.
2. The proposal was advanced through an application by LUL in 1993 for an Order under section 1 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 and deemed permission under section 90 (2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, together with applications, so far as material, for listed building consents under section 12(3A) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, ("LBCA").
3. These applications were considered at concurrent public Inquiries in 1994 by an Inspector who had the assistance of a listed buildings assessor. He recommended in favour of the applications.
4. On 20th January 1997, the Secretary of State for Transport made the Order sought under the Transport and Works Act 1992, which came into force on 10th February 1997. This empowers the construction and maintenance of the ELLX and provides related powers dealing with land acquisition, highways and bridges, and vesting of lands in exchange for the acquisition of public open space. By a decision letter of 20th January 1997, he directed that planning permission be deemed to be granted for the development included in the Order, subject to various conditions. By a decision letter dated 14th January 1997, the Secretary of State for the Environment granted listed building consent, again subject to conditions.

5. This case concerns the construction of ELLX over the Bishopsgate Goods Yard, an area of considerable historic interest and of importance in the development of the Victorian railway system in London.

6. It is difficult to describe the Goods Yard without becoming embroiled in controversy because an issue at the heart of the case was whether it should be seen as one or several buildings or structures. The Bishopsgate Goods Yard began life in 1839 as Shoreditch Station, the terminus of the Eastern Counties Railway Company. It covers some 4 hectares fronting on to Shoreditch High Street, north of Liverpool Street Station which replaced it in 1875. After 1875 the passenger terminal became a goods yard serving East Anglia. LUL describes it as "a series of connected structures on two levels". English Heritage describe it as "a structure" of considerable architectural and historic importance to London and the local area. The tracks, platforms and station buildings including warehouses at the upper level were destroyed by fire in 1964. It is now covered in rubble and debris of varying depths.
7. The viaducts and arches at the lower level were used as Bishopsgate low level station for passengers, but this closed in 1916; its structures were largely removed and there has subsequently been some commercial use of the arch space.
8. The upper level is and was accessed by a ramp from Shoreditch High Street. The gateway and pillars at the entrance to the ramp from the High Street were listed before the inception of LUL's proposal. The extent of that listing was a matter in issue before me. The Goods Yard is supported by viaduct like structures including the Braithwaite Viaduct. This Viaduct is one of the oldest railway structures in the world and is the second oldest in London. Its designer, John Braithwaite, the chief engineer of the Eastern Counties Railway was also an early locomotive engineer. It runs east-west in the southern part of the Goods Yard. It was listed on 8th March 2002. The significance of that listing for the demolition of adjacent arches and viaducts was in issue before me. 9. LUL's proposed ELLX would involve the demolition of the Bishopsgate Goods Yard to the north of the Braithwaite Viaduct. LUL's works would retain the...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Levy v Environment Agency & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 30, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1663 (Admin)




Case No: CO/4765/2001
NEUTRAL CITATION NUMBER: [2002] EWHC 1663 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL

Tuesday 30 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 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dr. David Wolfe (instructed by Bindmans for the Claimant)
Mr. Jon Turner (instructed by The Environment Agency for the Defendant)
Mr. Stephen Tromans (instructed by Clarks of Reading for the Interested Party)

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

Crown Copyright ©



Silber J:

Outline of the case

Mr. David Levy ("the claimant") seeks to challenge a decision of the Environment Agency ("the Agency"), which is contained in a Decision Document of August 2001 ("the Decision Document"), under which it granted a variation applied for in June 2000 ("the June 2000 application") by Blue Circle Industries plc ("Blue Circle") so as to permit the permanent use of scrap tyres as a substitute fuel at up to 24% thermal substitution at Blue Circle's cement works ("the cement works") at Westbury, Wiltshire. The claimant lives in the vicinity of the cement works and he is also founder of "The Air That We Breathe Group". He complains that the Agency failed to consider properly some of the environmental aspects of the June 2000 application.

Permission to make this application was granted by Elias J. Blue Circle was served as an Interested Party and it has appeared by counsel on the hearing having previously adduced evidence. The Agency is joined by Blue Circle in resisting this application. The claimant has abandoned most of the grounds on which he obtained leave and he now relies on only three grounds. The Agency contends that the claimant still needs permission to pursue one of these grounds as I will explain.

The background to this application

In 1962, Blue Circle's Westbury works commenced its cement producing operations. In 1996, trials were conducted at the cement works using tyres as a substitute for fuel to prove that the use of such power was both practical and acceptable from an environmental aspect. The initial results were inconclusive and it became clear that further trials would be required to improve the conditions in the kilns and to prove that there could be an overall environmental benefit from the use of tyres. In 1997, Blue Circle applied for a variation to its Integrated Pollution Control authorisation, which was granted under a regime introduced by the Environmental Protection Act 1990 ("the 1990 Act").

Blue Circle was granted permission to conduct a further trial using tyres as substitute fuel up to a maximum 40% thermal substitution. The trial commenced on 1 June 1998. Subsequently, an enforcement notice was issued by the Agency on 11 June 1998 which suspended the trial until management controls for the trial had been revised to the satisfaction of the Agency. The trial was allowed to resume on 22 March 1999 but then only after the Agency was satisfied that the concerns that caused it to issue this enforcement notice had been adequately addressed. At the time of the 1997 application, the consultation draft of the Agency' Substitute Fuels Protocol was followed. It has now been approved and it was also followed in the course of Blue Circle's application, which led to the decision under challenge in this case.

In December 1998, the Agency completed the statutory regular four yearly review of all the conditions required for the authorisation of the Westbury works of Blue Circle under section 6(6) of the 1990 Act, which I will explain in paragraph 15. On 16 June 2000, the Agency set a range of new conditions in the authorisation for the Westbury works including a new emission limit as a result of the recommendations for that four year review and consequential work, including assessments of the most exacting emission limits that could be imposed after an extensive consultation exercise.

During the previous trial conducted in 1998 and 1999, tests had been carried out while substituting conventional fuels with tyres up to a maximum thermal substitution level of 40%. In the June 2000 application, Blue Circle sought permission from the Agency to use tyres as substitute fuel up to 24% thermal substitution. By the Decision Document, the Agency granted the June 2000 application of Blue Circle but then only subject to a substantial number of significant conditions and it is this decision which is being challenged on this application.
The Decision Document consists of 166 pages and it was prepared after a very lengthy consultation process, whic...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Smeaton v Secretary of State for Health, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 12, 2002, [2002] EWHC 610 (Admin)

Case No: CO/928/2001
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 610 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL

Thursday 18 April 2002
Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUNBY

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

Mr Richard Gordon QC, Mr James Bogle and Mr Martin Chamberlain (instructed by Coningsbys) for the Claimant
Mr Kenneth Parker QC, Mr James Eadie and Mr Simon Hattan (instructed by the Office of the Solicitor to the Department) for the Secretary of State
Mr David Anderson QC and Miss Jemima Stratford (instructed by CMS Cameron McKenna) for Schering Health Care Limited
Ms Nathalie Lieven (instructed by Leigh Day & Co) for Family Planning Association

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

Crown Copyright ©

Mr Justice Munby:


1. This case raises medical and legal questions of great complexity, difficulty and interest. It raises also moral and ethical questions of great importance. But it is no exaggeration to say that the outcome of this case may potentially affect the everyday lives of hundreds of thousands, indeed millions, of ordinary men and women in this country.
2. This judgment is necessarily very long. I have had to summarise and analyse a large mass of medical and legal material, much of it of consuming interest. But it is, I believe, vitally important that the law should be accessible to all and that those who wish to understand my decision should be able to do so without having to read the full judgment. Accordingly I begin this judgment with an overview which summarises the issues and my decision. I have used what I hope is plain and straightforward language, avoiding as much as possible in this part of my judgment all technical medical and legal language.
OVERVIEW
3. This case concerns the legality of the prescription, supply and use of the morning-after pill.
4. The claimant, John Smeaton, who acts on behalf of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children ("SPUC"), says that such prescription or supply amounts in principle to a criminal offence under sections 58 and/or 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 ("the 1861 Act").
5. In reality the allegations which SPUC makes extend to this: that a woman who takes the morning-after pill is herself potentially committing a criminal offence under the 1861 Act.
6. Furthermore, and whatever SPUC may say, these allegations of serious criminality which it makes extend to cover any form of birth control which may have the effect of discouraging a fertilised egg from implanting in the lining of the womb - that is to say, not merely the morning-after pill but also IUDs, the mini-pill, and even the pill itself.
7. Put shortly, the effect of sections 58 and 59 of the 1861 Act, taken together with the relevant parts of the Abortion Act 1967, is that abortifacient substances - substances which cause miscarriage or abortion - may be administered only if two doctors certify that the conditions set out in the 1967 Act are satisfied. Otherwise, the use of such substances is in principle criminal.
8. SPUC's case is that, whatever it may be called, the morning-after pill is not in fact a contraceptive. It is, says SPUC, an abortifacient, in other words it causes miscarriages. Accordingly, says SPUC, unless the procedures laid down by the 1967 Act are complied with the supply and use the morning-after pill may involve the commission of criminal offences.
9. Compliance with the procedures laid down by the 1967 Act requires, as I have said, the involvement of two doctors. So if SPUC is right the use of the morning-after pill will in effect be lawful only if it has been prescribed by two doctors.
10. In order to understand SPUC's argument I need to explain the relevant medical facts. Put very simply, there are two key stages in the biological process following ***ual intercourse:
i) The first is fertilisation. This takes place after the man's sperm and the woman's egg have met in the fallopian tube. It is a process which commences hours, or even days, after ***ual intercourse. The process itself takes many hours.
ii) The other key stage is implantation. This takes place after the fertilised egg has moved into the womb. It involves a process by which the fertilised egg physically attaches itself to the wall of the womb. The process does not start until, at the earliest, some four days after the commencement of fertilisation. The process of implantation itself takes some days. 11. Put in its simplest terms, SPUC's case is that any interference with a fertilised egg, if it leads to the loss of the egg, involves the procuring of a "misc...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Cardiff County Council, R (on the application of) v Commissioners for Customs and Excise, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 15, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2085 (Admin)




Case No: CO/3671/2001
Neutral Citation no.: [2002] EWHC 2085 (Admin.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Tuesday 15 October2002

Before:

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE STANLEY BURNTON
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



THE QUEEN on the application of


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

Roderick Cordara QC and David Scorey (instructed by Finers Stephens Innocent) for the Claimant
Peter Mantle (instructed by the Solicitor for the Customs and Excise) for the Defendants

Hearing dates: 17, 18, 19 July 2002
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT : APPROVED BY THE COURT FOR HANDING DOWN (SUBJECT TO EDITORIAL CORRECTIONS)
Mr Justice Stanley Burnton:

Introduction
1. This is my judgment on preliminary issues ordered to be determined by the consent order of Burton J, as limited by agreement between the parties. I was told that this is a test case, on which others depend. (Indeed, much of the correspondence before me relates not to the Claimant Council, but to Renfrewshire Council.) In order to understand the issues I have to determine, it is necessary to summarise the facts and refer to the relevant legislative provisions.
The legislation in outline
2. The EC Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes requires the economic activities of producers, traders and persons applying services to be subject to value added tax. Persons who independently carry on such activities are "taxable persons": see Article 4.1. Public Authorities are not taxable persons in respect of their activities as such. Article 4.5 of the Directive is as follows:
"States, regional and local government authorities and other bodies governed by public law shall not be considered taxable persons in respect of the activities or transactions in which they engage as public authorities, even where they collect dues, fees, contributions or payments in connection with those activities or transactions. Howe...
[/align]