England and Wales High Court of Justice

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Land & Ors, R (on the application of) v Executive Counsel of the Joint Disciplinary Scheme, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 15, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2086 (Admin)



Draft 21 May 2003 12:16 Page 1
CO/3526/2002
Neutral Citation no.: [2002] EWHC 2086 (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 STANLEY BURNTON

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

THE QUEEN on the application of


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

Mark Hapgood QC, Tim Dutton QC and Mark Simpson
(instructed by Barlow Lyde & Gilbert) for the Claimants
The Hon Michael Beloff QC, Jonathan Evans and Edward Sawyer
(instructed by Stephenson Harwood) for the Defendant

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

Crown Copyright ©



Mr Justice Stanley Burnton:
Introduction
1. In these proceedings the Claimants, the partners of the well-known firm of accountants Ernst & Young (``E&Y''), seek an order staying the investigation by the Executive Counsel of the Accountants' Joint Disciplinary Scheme (``JDS'') into their work as auditors of the Equitable Life Assurance Society and its subsidiary undertakings until after the conclusion of the civil proceedings instituted by Equitable Life against them, on the ground that the continuation of that investigation gives rise to a real risk of serious prejudice to them. The prejudice alleged by E&Y is prejudice in that litigation, in the JDS investigation itself and any subsequent Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings, and to the private and professional lives of the partners and personnel who were involved in the audits and regulatory work of the firm for Equitable Life. E&Y contend that this prejudice outweighs the public interest in the present continuation of the investigation.
Background: (a) Equitable Life
2. The situation of Equitable Life and the losses incurred by its policyholders were consequences of the decision of the House of Lords in Equitable Life Assurance Society v Hyman [2002] 1 AC 408, given on 20 July 2000. The House of Lords decided not only that the directors of the Society were not entitled to declare a reduced final bonus to holders of pension policies who chose to exercise their guaranteed annuity options as against those who chose not to do so, but also that the directors could not lawfully declare different final bonuses to holders of policies containing such an option as compared with holders of policies which did not include a guaranteed annuity option. It was the second of these decisions, which according to the evidence before me had not been anticipated by the leading counsel advising the Society, and was the more controversial, that led to the financial difficulties of the Society, to its decision in December 2000 to close its doors to new business, to the sale of many of its realisable assets, and to the substantial reduction in the sums paid and payable by it to its policyholders. 3. Endowment ...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]

Quintavalle, R (on the application of) v Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 20, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2785 (Admin)

Case No: CO/1162/02
Neutral Citation No.[2002] EWHC 2785 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL

Friday 20 December 2002
Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY

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

THE QUEEN on the application of


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

Richard Gordon QC and Martin Chamberlain (instructed by Coningsbys) for the Claimant
Miss Dinah Rose (instructed by Morgan Cole) for the Defendant

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JudgmentMr Justice Maurice Kay : 1. This case is concerned with human leukocyte antigen typing, which is otherwise known as tissue typing. It is a technique which enables an embryologist to ascertain whether an embryo will produce a child whose tissue will match that of an existing person. Such a match would enable that child to act as a donor for an older sibling with a serious genetic disorder by the donation of stem cell material from the umbilical cord. The issue is whether the...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Peakviewing (Interactive) Ltd. & Ors v Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 23, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1531 (Admin)




CO/2630/2002
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1531 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
London WC2A 2LL

Tuesday, July, 23, 2002
Before

MR JUSTICE LAWRENCE COLLINS

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between
(1) PEAKVIEWING (INTERACTIVE) LIMITED
(2) TANMARSH COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED
(3) PEAKVIEWING TRANSATLANTIC BV
Claimants

and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR
CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
Defendant
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
(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 James Goudie QC and Mr Gerard Clark (instructed by Davenport Lyons)
for the Claimants.

Mr Alistair McGregor QC and Mr Jonathan Swift (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor)
for the Defendant.

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

Judgment
As Approved by the Court

1

Mr Justice Lawrence Collins:
I Introduction
1. The first claimant, Peakviewing (Interactive) Ltd (``Peakviewing'') is an independent film maker which produces films and television programmes. The second claimant, Tanmarsh Communications Ltd (``Tanmarsh''), is its parent company. The third claimant, Peakviewing Transatlantic BV (``Peakviewing Transatlantic''), is a Dutch company which, as owner and distributor of films produced by the group, has entered into various sale and leaseback arrangements in relation to the films. Peakviewing Interactive (Isle of Man) Ltd, an Isle of Man company in the group, commissions Peakviewing to make the programmes.
2. Peakviewing's promotional literature describes itself as one of the United Kingdom's leading independent film makers. Although Peakviewing has produced some conventional films (on which, the evidence suggests, losses were made), this case concerns a remarkable business venture undertaken by it. Since the year 2000 it has made 334 series of five minute films, normally consisting of 26 films in each series. Most of the films are in its Viewing4Leisure series, which consist of five minute programmes with titles such as ``A Guide to Self-catering and Camping in Guernsey,'' ``Pubs/Bars - Scotland,'' ``Hotels - (North of England)'' and ``B&Bs/Guest Houses - Isle of Man''.
3. Peakviewing describes Viewing4Leisure as a completely cross-platform, interactive leisure, travel and tourism business, enhancing all technologies from traditional television right through to interactive TV, broadband and 3G mobile technologies. It is said to consist of thousands of bespoke 5 minute programmes on selected venues, activities and destinations, predominantly for the leisure, travel and tourism industry, and with 8,500 episodes completed, it is a comprehensive viewer experience, which ``is truly world-wide in scope''. 4. The remarkable aspect of the business is this. Although more than 8,500 of these films have been made, it would seem that none of them has been commercially shown or exploited. The actual direct cash costs of producing the films are about £35,000 per series, but as a result of inter-group charges the average production costs are claimed to be more than £700,000 per series. Each of the series has been, or will be, sold to partnerships of higher-rate taxpayers on sale and leaseback arrangements. All but 11.5% of the pr...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Oliver Fisher (a firm) v Legal Services Commission, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 20, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1017 (Admin)

Case No: C0/4184/2001
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1017 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL

Friday 10 May 2002
Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER

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

Paul Staddon (instructed by Oliver Fisher Solicitors) for the Claimants
Jeremy Morgan (instructed by Policy and Legal Department, Legal Services Commission) for the Defendants

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

Crown Copyright ©

Mr Justice Scott Baker:

1. The Claimants seek judicial review of a decision of the Defendants, finally affirmed on 3 October 2001, to defer payment of their taxed profit costs of £16,077.38 earned while acting for a legally assisted litigant. 2. For many years it has been the law that the Legal Services Commission, and before it the Legal Aid Board, has a first charge on any property that is recovered or preserved for a legally aided litigant in proceedings that it has funded. This statuto...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Rose & Anor v Secretary of State for Health Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 26, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1593 (Admin)


Case No: CO/3802/01
Neutral Citation Number [2002]EWHC 1593 (ADMIN)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL

Friday 26 July 2002

Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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 Monica Carss-Frisk Q.C and Mr Tom De La Mare (instructed by Liberty) for the Claimants
Mr Nigel Giffin (instructed by Solicitor, Department of Health) for the First Defendant
Ms Dinah Rose (instructed by Morgan Cole) for the Second Defendant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©




Mr Justice Scott Baker

1. This case concerns the rights of children born as a result of artificial insemination by donor (`A.I.D.'). There are two Claimants, Joanna Rose, an adult and EM who is a child represented by her mother as litigation friend. Their cases are being conducted by Liberty not only on their behalf but also on behalf of many others who have similar concerns to find out information about their biological parents.
2. Joanna Rose was born in Reading in 1972, long before the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 ("the 1990 Act") and indeed well before the Warnock Committee on Human Fertilisation and Embryology whose report in 1984 led to the 1990 Act. At the time of her conception more or less complete secrecy was the order of the day but attitudes have changed a great deal during her lifetime. Fertility services were provided to her mother by Dr Boyd from his Harley Street practice and she has an older brother, Adam, who was born in 1966. He too is an A.I.D. child and was conceived as a result of fertility services at the same clinic albeit with sperm, it is believed, from a different donor.
3. EM was born on 18 January 1996. Her mother had previously been treated for 13 months at St James's University Hospital, Leeds. She is now six years old. All that is known of the donor is that he is six feet two inches tall, of medium build, has dark hair and hazel eyes and has an A positive blood group. 4. Ms Rose lives in Brisbane, Australia. She has dual citizenship. She is single and has no children. For six months she worked full time at Link-up, an organisation working for indigenous Australians that reunites and supports children born to indigenous families, separated from those families and placed with white adopted parent...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Arzpeyma, R (on the application of) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 04, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2395 (Admin)

1

Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 2395 Admin Case No: CO/91/2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL

Monday 4th November 2002
B e f o r e :

MR NIGEL PLEMING Q. C.
(Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

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


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

Patrick Lewis (instructed by Winstanley Burgess, Solicitors, for the Claimant)
Gerard Clarke (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor for the Interested Party)

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

Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©


1. This is an application for Judicial Review of the refusal by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (Mr Rapinet, Vice President) to grant leave to appeal from the decision of an Immigration Act Adjudicator. The decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal was notified on the 9th October 2001, although dated the 25th September 2001. Mr Rapinet refused lea...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
European Roma Rights Centre & Ors v Immigration Officer At Prague Airport & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 08, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1989 (Admin),[2003] ACD 15




Case No: [2002] EWHC 1989 (Admin)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 8 October 2002

Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BURTON
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :


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

Lord Lester QC, Ms Dinah Rose and Mr Guy Goodwin-Gill (instructed by Liberty) for the Claimants
Ms Monica Carss-Frisk QC and Mr Michael Fordham (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendants

Hearing dates : 22, 23, 24 July 2002
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT : APPROVED BY THE COURT FOR HANDING DOWN (SUBJECT TO EDITORIAL CORRECTIONS)
Mr Justice Burton:
1. Immigration officials are stationed at entry points in the United Kingdom to enforce the Immigration Rules, contained in HC395 as amended ("the Rules"). Apart from EEA nationals, who are subject to quite separate treatment, all those who are not British citizens are not permitted to enter the United Kingdom by virtue of s3(1)(a) of the Immigration Act ("the 1971 Act") "unless given leave to do so in accordance with the provisions of, or made under," that Act, pursuant to which the Rules are made.
2. Applications for such leave fall primarily into two categories:
i) Those who seek and obtain visas for entry. These are available in advance of travel (entry clearance). This applies to "visa nationals", who are primarily members of some 105 countries listed in Appendix 1 to the Rules, including Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Rumania, Russia, Slovakia, Turkey and Yugoslavia (see particularly paragraphs 24-30c of the Rules). If the passenger has obtained a visa in advance then he will be admitted, subject to the provisions of Rule 321, which provides for leave still to be refused on certain limited grounds, e.g. that the immigration officer is satisfied that the visa was obtained by misrepresentation, or that there has been a material change of circumstance, or that there are certain overriding grounds such as the existence of a criminal record.
ii) Those who apply for leave to enter upon entry.
3. The grounds upon which entry clearance or leave to enter can be sought and obtained under the Rules are relatively numerous and are set out in Parts 2-8 of the Rules. They include short visits, whether for business, work, the obtaining of private medical treatment or a holiday (e.g. Rule 40-56, 95-127), and provide for proposed students or post-graduate doctors or dentists or student nurses (Rules 60-75, 82-87F) or their spouses or children (Rules 76-81), for au pairs (Rules 88-94), those with valid work permits (Rules 128-135) and Ministers of religion (Rules 169-177).
4. The Rules apply stringent conditions to each category of applicant. For example, Rule 41 sets out the requirements to be met by those seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom as a visitor, namely that he or she:
"(i) is genuinely seeking entry as a visitor for a limited period as stated ... not exceeding 6 months; and
(ii) intends to leave the United Kingdom at the end of the period of the visit as stated ...; and
(iii) does not intend to take employment in the United Kingdom;
(iv) does not intend to produce goods or provide services within the United Kingdom; and
(v) does not intend to study at a maintained school; and
(vi) will maintain and accommodate himself and any dependants adequately out of resources available to him without recourse to public funds or taking employment; or will, with any dependants, be maintained and accommodated adequately by relatives or friends; and
(vii) can meet the cost of the return or outward journey. "
5. By Rule 320:
"In addition to the grounds for refusal of entry clearance or leave to enter set out in Parts 2-8 of the Rules, and subject to Paragraph 321 [to which I have referred in paragraph 2(i) above], the following grounds for the refusal of entry clearance or leave to enter apply:
Grounds on which entry clearance or leave to enter the United Kingdom is to be refused
(1) The fact that entry is being sought for a purpose not covered by these Rules ...
(3) A failure by the person seeking entry to the United Kingdom to produce to the Immigration Officer a valid national passport or other document satisfactorily establishing his identity and nationality ...
(5) Failure, in the case of a visa national, to produce to the Immigration Officer a passport or other identity document endorsed with a valid and current United Kingdom entry clearance issued for the purpose for which entry is sought.
Grounds on which entry clearance or leave to enter the United Kingdom should normally be refused
(8) Failure by a person arriving in the United Kingdom to furnish the Immigration Officer with such information as may be required for the purpose of deciding whether he requires leave to enter and, if so, whether and on what terms leave should be given ... (19) Where from information av...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Cumpsty, R (on the application of) v Rent Service, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 08, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2526 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE
CO/1892/02
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 2526 Admin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2

Friday, 8 November 2002
B E F O R E:

MR JUSTICE PITCHFORD

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

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF CUMPSTY
(CLAIMANT)

-v-

RENT SERVICE
(DEFENDANT)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph 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 JAN LUBA QC AND MR ADAM FULLWOOD (FOR JUDGMENT MISS HARRIS) (instructed by The Thrasher Walker Partnership, The Old Bank, 112 Heaton Moore Road, Heaton More, Stockport, SK4 4 AN) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT
MR G FETHERSTONHAUGH (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T1. MR JUSTICE PITCHFORD:
THE CLAIM FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
The claimant, Mr Robert Cumpsty, holds an assured tenancy of 1 Silent Valley Cottage situated between the villages of Lymm and High Legh in Cheshire. His is a private landlord. His monthly contractual rent is £550. Since 18th September 1996, Mr Cumpsty has been in receipt of housing benefit. On 22nd January 2002 the Rent Service, by their rent officer, Mr Duncan Turner, redetermined his Local Reference Rent for the purposes of Article 3 and Schedule 1 paragraph 4 of the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Order 1997 in the sum of £525 per month.
2. The claimant was on financial grounds entitled to housing benefit at the maximum rate, in this case £525, leaving a shortfall to be found from his income support of £25 per month. The claimant seeks a review of the Rent Service decision on two grounds:
(1) Mr Turner misdirected himself in law by applying the wrong test of locality by which to arrive at the Local Reference Rent; and
(2)(a) the redetermination was procedurally unfair contrary to the rules of natural justice; and/or

(b) in breach of the claimant's Article 6 right to a fair trial in the determination of his civil rights.
As to ground (2) it is accepted that if the process is Article 6 compliant then ground (2) falls in its entirety.
THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

3. The presence of ground (2) requires me to describe in some detail the statutory framework which caused the Rent Service to make its redetermination. The framework I am considering is now out of date, but I am asked to express views which may be of more general application in Housing Benefit cases.
4. Housing benefit is a non-contributory earnings related benefit payable by local authorities and not by the Department of Social Security. Its cost is met, however, wholly or largely from government funding by reimbursement to the paying authorities. There are two forms of benefit: rent rebate, paid by the local authorities to their own tenants; and rent allowances, provided by local authorities for the benefit of the tenants of others. I am concerned in this case with the latter.
5. In the event that the tenant's contractual rent is not met by housing benefit, the local authority has a statutory discretion to provide further financial assistance to meet housing costs. Mr Cumpsty has received such payments but they do not feature in the analysis required for this review.
6. By section 130(1) Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992:
"A person is entitled to housing benefit if-
(a) he is liable to make payments in respect of a dwelling in Great Britain which he occupies as his home;
(b) there is an appropriate maximum housing benefit in his case, and
(c) either
(i) he has no income, or his income does not exceed the applicable amount, or (ii) his income exceeds that amount but only by so much that there is an amount remaining if the deduction for which subsection (3)(b) (below) provides is...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Langford v The Law Society, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 09, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2802 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE
CO/3282/02
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 2802 Admin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2

Monday, 9 December 2002
B E F O R E:

LORD JUSTICE ROSE
(Vice President of the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division)

MR JUSTICE FULFORD

- - - - - - -

IN THE MATTER OF A SOLICITOR
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974

LANGFORD
(CLAIMANT)

-v-

THE LAW SOCIETY
(DEFENDANT)
- - - - - - -
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph 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 C FOSTER (instructed by Hempsons, Hempsons Hse, 40 Villiers Street, London WC2N BNJ) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT
MR G WILLIAMS (Solicitor) (instructed by The Law Society) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
- - - - - - - J U D G M E N T 1. LORD JUSTICE ROSE: The appellant appeals against a decision of the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal whereby he was ordered to be struck off the Roll of Solicitors. The Tribunal heard the case against this appellant ...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Murray, R (on the application of) v Hampshire County Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 21, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2491 (Admin)

Case No: CO/3384/2002
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 2491 Admin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL

Thursday 21 November 2002
Before :

The Hon. Mr Justice OUSELEY

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




- - - - - - - - - - - - -
(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 William UPTON (instructed by Richard Buxton) for the Claimant
Mr Tim HOWARD (instructed by Hampshire County Council Legal Practice) for the Defendant

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

Crown Copyright ©

Mr Justice Ouseley :


Introduction

1. The extension of the M3 around Winchester, carving its way through the grassland of Twyford Down on its way to Southampton, had been a matter of deep public controversy in Winchester and beyond. The cost of a tunnel was thought to be excessive. But in its 1990 Decision Letter on this extension the Government agreed that, in return, the old A33 Winchester bypass would be broken out and turned to open grassland. The chalk sub-soil, properly seeded and tended, would become wild flower meadow land. This was done and the Bar End meadows, which were once part of the old by-pass, are now flourishing wild flower meadows.

2. In 1996 Hampshire County Council applied to itself for planning permission to turn the Bar End meadows into a car park of 428 spaces for the Winchester Park and Ride scheme; this would be additional to 238 spaces at Bar End Road. The Secretary of State called in the two applications for his own determination because of national policy implications and in the light of an undertaking given by the Government about the former bypass in connection with the decision on the M3 link through Twyford Down. A public Inquiry was held in late 1997.
3. The Secretary of State dealt with the undertaking in his 1998 decision letter in paragraphs 12-14. "12. ... In the M3 decision letter the former Secretaries of State agreed that the removal of the existing bypass and the reclamation and planting of the area would be " ... a major environmental benefit of the published proposals" which would be welcomed by many, including objectors. The press statements which accompanied the M3 decision announced that the removal of the Winchester bypass and the restoration of the area would be a significant envi
[/align]...