England and Wales High Court of Justice

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Ramda, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 27, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1278 (Admin)




Case No: CO/4894/2001
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1278 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 27 June 2002

Before:

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY
and
MR JUSTICE POOLE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:


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

Ben Emmerson QC and Julian Knowles (instructed by Birnberg Peirce & Partners) for the Claimant
James Eadie (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendant

Hearing dates: 10 May 2002
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT : APPROVED BY THE COURT FOR HANDING DOWN (SUBJECT TO EDITORIAL CORRECTIONS)
Lord Justice Sedley:

This is the judgment of the court.

These proceedings

1. The applicant, Rachid Ramda, an Algerian national, is wanted by the French government for trial in connection with a series of terrorist bombings in France between July and October 1995 which resulted in much destruction and injury. The Home Secretary has ordered his extradition to France under s.12 of the Extradition Act 1989. Mr Ramda seeks permission to apply for judicial review of this decision. Scott Baker J has directed that his application should come before this court with the full hearing to follow if permission is granted. Subject to the reservation mentioned in paragraph 5 below, we grant permission. What follows is our decision on the substantive application for judicial review. 2. Among the first arrests made in France after the bombings was that of...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
C, R (on the application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, February 01, 2002, [2002] EWHC 243 (Admin)

CO/4501/2001
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 243 Admin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL

Friday 1st February 2002
B e f o r e

MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY

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

T H E Q U E E N
ON TH...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
BAA Plc v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and Regions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 31, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1920 (Admin)


Case No: CO 4305-01
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1920 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Combined Courts Centre
The Law Courts
Winchester
Hants SO23 9EL

Wednesday 31 July 2002
Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TURNER

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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 Robert FOOKES & Mr Reuben TAYLOR appeared for the Claimant
Mr Paul NICHOLLS appeared for the Defendant
MR David WOOLLEY QC appeared for the 3rd Defendant

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment

Introduction
Mr Justice Turner: This is an application under part 8 of the CPR and section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash the decision of the Secretary of State dated 18 September 2001 under which he granted planning permissions for the construction of the Chickenhall Lane Link Road (the Link Road), and in particular that section of it which it was proposed should pass in a cutting immediately to the North of Runway 20 of Southampton International Airport.
History
1. Acting under section 77 of the Act, the Secretary of State called in two planning applications on 10 March 2000. Both related to the construction of the Link Road. The applications were identified as being:
i) planning application no. 7535/40 and
ii) reserved matters application no. 7535/41, pursuant to the outline planning permission granted ... under reference 7535/12. [Note: all applications will hereafter be identified by their forward slash suffix numbers only eg 7535/12 as .../12].
2. The reason for the call-in was stated to be
Because the applications raise issues of more than local importance about the application of recommendations by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), the Secretary of State is of the opinion that he ought to decide the applications for himself.
3. The letter of call-in went on to identify matters which appeared to the Secretary of State to be likely to be relevant to his consideration of the applications, namely the effect which the proposed road would have on (a) the ICAO's Recommended Practices for Runway End Safety Areas (RESAs) at the airport (b) the impact which the proposed development would have on the River Itchen candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC) and (c) whether any permission should be subject to any and, if so, what conditions. 4. The Inquiry, which began on 5 September 2000 lasted a number of days. The parties to the present proceedings, with the addition of the local planning authority, Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC), appeared at the Inquiry. The applicant for permission was the third defendant who was the developer intending to develop two areas of `brown land' situated at the Southwest an...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Hooper & Ors v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, February 08, 2002, [2002] UKHRR 785,[2002] EWHC 191 (Admin)


Case No: CO/0865/2001
Case No: CO/4743/2000
Case No: CO/3505/2001
Case No: CO/3507/2001
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 191 (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)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr. James Goudie QC and Mr. Jason Coppel (instructed by Loosemores for Mr. Hooper)
Mr. Geoffrey Cox and Mr. Edward Risso-Gill (instructed by Royds Treadwell for Messrs. Withey, Naylor and Martin)
Mr. Philip Sales and Miss Jemima Stratford (instructed by the Solicitor to the Department of Work and Pensions for the Secretary of State)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©



Mr Justice Moses:

INTRODUCTION
1. These four claimants are widowers. Their wives, sadly, died before the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 ("the 1999 Act") came into force on 9.4.2001. Had they been women they would have become entitled to one or more forms of benefit payable to widows pursuant to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. In issue are three types of widow's benefit: Widow's Payment, Widowed Mother's Allowance and Widow's Pension. These are test cases, since there are a large number of potential claimants whose entitlement will depend upon the outcome of this case.

2. At the heart of the case lies an issue of discrimination on the ground of gender and the effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 upon the powers of the court to rectify such discrimination. The Government has reached a friendly settlement of claims brought by widowers who made claims to benefits other than Widow's Pension in Strasbourg. The claimants assert that their claims should also have been settled.

3. Widow's Payment and Widowed Mother's Allowance are at issue in the claims of Messrs. Hooper, Withey and Martin. Widow's Payment and Widow's Pension are at issue in the case of Mr. Naylor. Mr. Hooper's first wife died on 17.12.1986 leaving two dependent children. His second wife died on 27 March 1997, leaving three dependent children. Mr. Withey's wife died on 26 November 1996, leaving two dependent children. Mr. Martin's wife died on 11 September 2000, leaving two dependent children and Mr. Naylor's wife died on 2 July 1995.
STATUTORY PROVISIONS

4. Sections 36-38 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 ("the 1992 Act ") provided for the payment of Widow's Payment, Widowed Mother's Allowance and Widow's Pension in respect of the death of a husband before 9 April 2001. The relevant provisions are set out in the Annexe to this judgment. The provisions of the Social Security Act 1986 are relevant to Mr. Hooper's claim in respect of the death of his first wife but since, for reasons given later, he has no valid claim I shall not set out those provisions.

5. Section 36 of the 1992 Act provided for a Widow's Payment, a lump sum payment of £1000 subject to conditions which included restriction to those under pensionable age and payment by the late husband of National Insurance contributions.

6. Section 37 provided for a Widowed Mother's Allowance, weekly payments, for women with dependent children (entitled to child benefit) subject to similar conditions.

7. Section 38 provided for Widow's Pension, weekly payments, to those over 45 but under the age of 65 subject to similar conditions.

8. These provisions were replaced by the 1999 Act, the relevant provisions of which are set out in the Annexe. These provisions introduced a system of survivor's benefits, Bereavement Payment, Widowed Parent's Allowance and Bereavement Allowance payable to both men and women, but at the cost of a more limited form of benefit. But it preserved the distinction between widows and widowers for those already in receipt of widows' benefits. It was not made retrospective.
9. Section 54 (inserting a new Section 36 into the 1999 Act) replaced Widow's Payment with Bereavement Payment set at £2000 for those whose spouses died on or after 9 April 2001. A deceased spouse must have satisfied the contribution condition.

10. Section 55 (inserting a new Section 39A) provides for Widowed Parent's Allowance for spouses with dependent children. The contribution condition must have been satisfied.

11. Section 55 also (by the insertion of a new Section 39B) replaces Widow's Pension by a Bereavement Allowance payable only for 52 weeks to those over 45 but under pensionable age.
12. Existing rights are preserved by Section 55 (inserting Section 36A). Widows whose husbands died before 9 April 2001 will continue to rece...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Oriekhil v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 08, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2750 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE
CO/2412/2002
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 2750 Admin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2

Date: Tuesday, 8th October 2002
B E F O R E:

MR JUSTICE JACKSON

- - - - - - -

NAJIBULLAH ORIEKHIL
(CLAIMANT)

-v-

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
(DEFENDANT)
- - - - - - - Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of ...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Taylor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 20, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2761 (Admin)

Case No: CO/4746/1999
Neutral Citation Number [2002] EWHC 2761 (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)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Peter Irvin (instructed by Abboushi Associates) for the Claimant
Hugo Keith (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) for the Defendant

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JudgmentMr Justice Maurice Kay : 1. John Henry Taylor is now eighty years old. On 9 August 1962, following a trial at the County of London Sessions, he was convicted of an offence of breaking out of a building having committed a felony therein contrary to section 26 of the Larceny Act 1916. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment. He applied to the Court of Criminal Appeal for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence but on 21 December 1962 leave was refused. He has always maintained that he was wrongly convicted. He unsuccessfully petitioned the Home Secretary to have the matter referred back to the Court of Appeal. It was only after the establishment of the Criminal Cases Review Commission that his case was again referred to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. On 18 June 1998 the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction. Within days, solicitors acting on behalf of Mr. Taylor applied to the Home Secretary for compensation pursuant to the statutory scheme pursuant to section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 or for an ex gratia payment in accordance with the Home Secretary's statement to the House of Commons on 29 November 1985. On 18 November 1998 the Home Secretary refused compensation under both headings. Mr. Taylor applied for j
[/align]...

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Emlik, R (on the application of) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 26, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1279 (Admin)



Case No: CO/189/2002
NEUTRAL CITATION NUMBER: [2002] EWHC 1279 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL

Wednesday 26 June 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. Manjit Gill QC (instructed by Sheikh & Co for the claimant)
Mr. Michael Fordham (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor for the interested party)
The defendant was not represented

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

Crown Copyright ©


Silber J:
The claimant seeks to quash a decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal made on 12 October 2001 allowing the appeal of the Secretary of State for the Home Department against a decision of a Special Adjudicator made on 30 May 2001 ("the second hearing") allowing the claimant's appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State refusing the claimant asylum and giving directions for his removal from the United Kingdom. The decision of the Special Adjudicator on the second hearing to allow the appeal was based on the failure of the Secretary of State to comply with a direction of a Special Adjudicator made at a hearing on 22 February 2001 ("the first hearing") to consider the claimant's substantive asylum application. Sir Oliver Popplewell granted permission to make this application. This appeal r...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
R (Tamil Information Centre) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 18, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2155 (Admin)

Case No: CO/4924/2001
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 2155 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL

Friday 18th October 2002

Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE FORBES
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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

Robin Allen QC and Simon Cox, instructed by Winstanley-Burgess,
appeared for the Claimant;

Michael Fordham, instructed by The Treasury Solicitor,
appeared for the Defendant.


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

Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©

Mr Justice Forbes :
1. Introduction. As originally framed, these proceedings were for appropriate relief by way of judicial review in respect of the first and second Race Relations (Immigration and Asylum) Authorisations (hereafter called ``the first Authorisation'' and ``the second Authorisation'') respectively made by the Defendant (``the Secretary of State'') on 27th March and 23rd April 2001 pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976 (``the 1976 Act''), as amended by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 (``the 2000 Act''). However, on 11th June 2002, the second Authorisation was revoked by the Secretary of State. In the event, therefore, these proceedings are concerned only with the Claimant's challenge to the lawfulness of the first Authorisation.
2. The Claimant is a non-profit making company run by Tamils as a resource centre and library that is concerned with the welfare of Tamils and, in particular, their equality under the law. Most of the individuals who are involved with the Claimant originate from Sri Lanka, but their number also includes Tamils who are nationals of other countries, including India, the USA and various European countries. It is worth noting that it is common ground that, in all the circumstances, the Claimant does have a...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Atkinson & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 09, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2028 (Admin)




Case No: CO/601/2002
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 2028 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
DIVISIONAL COURT

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 9th October 2002

Before :

LORD JUSTICE BROOKE
and
MR JUSTICE BELL
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :


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

Kenneth Parker QC & Kassie Smith (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the Appellant
Simon Temple (instructed by Beaty & Co) for the First Respondent
Paul Timothy Evans (instructed by Scott Duff & Co) for the Second Respondent

Hearing date : 30th July 2002
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT : APPROVED BY THE COURT FOR HANDING DOWN (SUBJECT TO EDITORIAL CORRECTIONS)



Lord Justice Brooke : This is the judgment of the court. 1. This is an appeal by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ("DEFRA") by way of case stated from the decision of justices sitting at Penrith Magistrates' Court on 9th November 2001 to acquit Brendon Atkinson and Robert Hughes of a number of offences relating to veterinary medicinal products. All the alleged offences were said to have been committed at Penrith. At the end of the prosecution case the justices held that there was no case to answer. They therefore discharged the...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Hopley, R (on the application of) v Liverpool Health Authority & Ors, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 30, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1723 (Admin)


Case No: CO/1369/2002
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1723 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL

Tuesday 30 July 2002
Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE PITCHFORD
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Richard Hone QC and Sarah Moore (instructed by Edwards, Abrams & Doherty) for the Claimant
Robert Seabrook QC and Shaheen Rahman (instructed by Hill Dickinson) for the First and Second Defendants
Susan Chan (instructed by The Department of Health) for the Third Defendant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Pitchford:
The Claim
1. The Claimant seeks judicial review of a decision by the First Defendant not to consent to the payment to him of damages for personal injury by periodical payments under a With Profits Structured Settlement pursuant to s.2 Damages Act 1996. The Second and Third Defendants are joined since, it is contended by the Claimant, they contributed to or directed the First Defendant's decision.
The Parties and Factual Background to the Dispute
2. The Claimant was born on 20 March 1973 and is now aged 29 years. He is the son of Kenneth and Patricia Hopley. Richard Hopley was at birth the victim of hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy. He suffers a form of athetoid cerebral palsy which renders him severely physically incapacitated. Richard retains much of his cognitive functioning, indeed he attended most of the hearing before me, but suffers profound communication difficulties. He is wheelchair dependent, requires assistance with transfers and his carers are on 24 hour call. His bravery and the care he has received from his family are impressive.
3. The Claimant pursued a claim for clinical negligence arising from the treatment provided by the First Defendant, Liverpool Health Authority, at or about the time of his birth. That claim was compromised on 20 June 2000 at 50 % full liability with damages to be assessed. On 27 February 2001 Ouseley J. adjourned approval of a proposed settlement between the Claimant and First Defendant in the conventional sum of £2,100,000 for consideration of a structured settlement under s. 2 Damages Act 1996. 4. The Second Defendant is the National Health Service Litigation Authority, ('NHSLA'), a creature of statute. It is necessary to examine the statutory provisions. Section 21 National Health and Community Care Act 1990 empowered the Secretary of State for Health, with the consent of the Treasury, to make regulations establishing a scheme by which Health Authorities and other bodies would be enabled to meet their liabilities to "third parties for loss, damage or injury arising out of the carrying out of the functions of the body concerned". Such a scheme could, by s. 21(3), provide for its administration by the Secretary of State or a Special Health Authority, could require any participating body to make payments in accordance with the scheme, and could provide for the making of payments for the purpose of t...
[/align]