England and Wales High Court of Justice

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Berkshire & Oxfordshire Magistrates' Courts' Committee v Gannon & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 14, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 326



Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL

Friday 14th April 2000

B e f o r e

THE HON. MR JUSTICE CARNWATH

BERKSHIRE AND OXFORDSHIRE
MAGISTRATES' COURTS' COMMITTEE
Appellant
-V-

MRS J.M. GANNON AND MRS K.J.PIZZEY
Respondents
__________
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2HD
Tel No: 0171 421 4040 0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
__________
Mrs A. Proops (Judgment)
Mr Adrian Lynch (instructed by Slough Borough Council Legal Department) appeared on behalf of the appellant.

Mr Oliver Segal (instructed by Messrs Thompsons, Congress House, Great Russell Street WC1B 3LW) appeared on behalf of the respondents.
__________

Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©









The Hon. Mr Justice Carnwath This is an appeal against a decision of the Employment Tribunal given on 23rd November 1998. As the Tribunal said, it concerns a somewhat obscure corner of their jurisdiction, relating to what are known as the "Crombie" Regulations. (No-one before me was able to explain the name). These are the Justices of the Peace Act 1949 (Compensation) Regulations 1978, as amended. They regulate the compensation payable on redundancy to justices' clerks or their assistants. The case turns on a short statutory q...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Otaru, R (On The Application Of), Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 24, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 346
















Page 7






Case no: CO/1088/2000
IN THE high court of justice
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
CROWn OFFICE LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London wc2

Wednesday, 24th May 2000

Before:
mr justice Owen

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

R e g i n a

- v -

ex paret Otaru
____________________
(Computer-Aided Transcript of the stenograph notes 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 K HAMMOND (instructed by Victor Evans & Co, London SE1) appeared on behalf of the Applicant

MISS J COLLIER (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
____________________

J U D G M E N T (s Approv...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Lincoln Co-Operative Society Ltd, R (on the application of) v South Holland District Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 14, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 419

1

Case no: CO/1640/2000

IN THE high court of justice
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of justice
Strand, London,
wc2a 2ll

Tuesday, 14 November, 2000

Before:

MRS JUSTICE SMITH

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

The Queen
-v-
South holland district Council
Appellant
ex parte
Respondent
Lincoln co-operative society ltd
____________________
(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 N. Nardecchia (instructed byAndrew & Co, St Swithn's Square, Lincoln) for the Appellant

Mr T. Corner (instructed by Marples & Son, 23 New Road, Spalding, Lincs PE11 1DH) for the Respondent

____________________

Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©





Mrs Justice Smith:

This is an application by the Lincoln Co-operative Society Ltd (the Co-op), brought with the permission of Scott Baker J, for judicial review of a decision of the South Holland District Council Development Control (Planning) Committee (the Council) on the 23rd February 2000, when they granted planning permission to Westry Developments Ltd (Westry) for a retail development at a site at Station Yard, Long Sutton, Lincolnshire.

Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 states that in dealing with an application for planning permission a local planning authority shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations.

Section 54A of the Act requires that a local planning authority shall determine a planning application in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The relevant development plan for South Holland comprised two documents: the Lincolnshire County Structure Plan Alteration Number 2 ( 1994) and the South Holland District Local Plan (1998). The Lincolnshire Structure Plan provided at Policy 24A:
`Major new shopping development within or adjacent to the urban areas but outside their centres as may be defined in local plans will normally be permitted where: Access is adequate and the additional traffic generated can be accommodated on the surrounding road netw...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc, R v Customs & Excise, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 14, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 370

12



CO/1606/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL


Date: 14th July 2000


B e f o r e :

TH E HON MR JUSTICE LANGLEY


Between:


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2HD
Tel No: 0171 421 4040 0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr P. Mantle (instructed by the Solicitor for the Customs and Excise for the Respondents)
Mr D Vaughan QC (instructed by Messrs Herbert Smith for the Applicant)

Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Langley:
This is an application for permission. The questions are whether the application made on May 8, 2000 is out of time under RSC Order 53 rule 4 and if it is whether the court should extend time....
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Samaroo, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 20, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 435


- 1 -

Case No: CO/4973/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL


Wednesday 20th December 2000


B e f o r e :

THE HON. MR JUSTICE THOMAS


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Nicholas Blake QC and Osama Daneshya (instructed by T Osmani) for the Applicants
John Howell QC and Steven Kovats (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Respondent

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

Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©











MR JUSTICE THOMAS:

Introduction

1. In April 1994 the applicant was found guilty of an offence of being concerned in the importation of 4 kg of cocaine and was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment and recommended for deportation. He was refused leave to appeal. A deportation order was made against him in April 1998. In November 2000, the Secretary of State made his final decision not to revoke the order. The applicant now applies for a declaration that his removal from the UK pursuant to a deportation order made on him would be a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and for the quashing of the decision of November 2000 not to revoke the deportation order. He contends that the Secretary of State misdirected himself as to the proper test to apply and that in any event the decision to deport was disproportionate to the effect it will have on his family. Before considering the arguments advanced it is necessary to set out the facts.

The factual background
2. The applicant is a citizen of Guyana and was born there in February 1948. He left Guyana for the USA in 1983; in June 1988, at the age of 40, he moved to the United Kingdom and was given leave to enter for 6 months as a visitor.

3. Three months later, in September 1988 he married Jennifer Alitia Camacho. He had known her since his school days and had remained in communication with her. She had arrived in the United Kingdom in 1969 when she was 16; she had had three children from a previous relationship who were born respectively in 1972, 1976 and 1982. She had obtained British Citizenship in 1987.

4. In March 1989, the applicant was given leave to remain in the United Kingdom for 12 months as a foreign spouse and on 15 March 1990 was granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a foreign spouse. On 18 April 1991, a son, Jonathan, was born to the applicant and his wife.
5. In June 1993 the applicant was arrested at Heathrow Airport for being concerned with the importation of 4 kg of cocaine; its street value was then estimated to be £450,000. He was tried with other...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Cantabrica Coach Holdings Ltd v Vehicle Inspectorate, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 31, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 315

- 12 -






IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CO/3235/1999
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London WC2A 2LL

Friday, 31st March 2000



Before:

LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY
and
MR JUSTICE BUTTERFIELD

_________________________


CANTABRICA COACH HOLDINGS LIMITED
Appellant

-v-

VEHICLE INSPECTORATE
Respondent
_________________________
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2HD
Tel No: 0171 421 4040 0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
_________________________

MR DAVID PHILLIPS Q.C. and MR RICHARD SERLIN (instructed by Messrs Wedlake Saint, 14 John Street, London WC1N 2EB) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.

MR RICHARD PLENDER Q.C. (instructed by Foinette Quinn, 125-131 Queensway, Bletchley, Milton Keynes MK2 2DH) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
_________________________

Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©


MR JUSTICE BUTTERFIELD:

General

1. This is an appeal by way of case stated from a decision of Hertfordshire Justices sitting at Dacorum on 10 May 1999 whereby the appellant was convicted of failing to hand over to the respondent tachograph charts, contrary to Section 99(1)(bb) of the Transport Act 1968. The case raises the question of the proper construction of the relevant legislation. The resolution of that issue is of considerable practical importance to transport operators and to the Department of Transport alike.

Summary of the Facts
2. The appellant company, Cantabrica Coach Holdings Ltd, is a coach operator and the holder of a Public Services Vehicle Operators Licence and as such obliged to comply with Pa...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Alba Radio Ltd & Anor, R (On The Application Of) v Department Of Trade & Industry, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 30, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 423

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CO/4138/1999
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London,
WC2A 2LL

Thursday 30th November 2000
Before:

NIGEL PLEMING QC
(SITTING AS A DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT)
-----------------------------
BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

and

THE DEPARTMENT OF TRADE & INDUSTRY
Respondent

ex parte

(1) ALBA RADIO LIMITED
(2) PIFCO LIMITED
Applicants

-----------------------------
(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 Claire Andrews, instructed by Reid Minty, appeared on behalf of the Claimants.

Mr Jonathan Crow, instructed by the Treasury Solicitor, appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
-----------------------------
Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©
Judgment -
1. The Applicants are importers and distributors of electrical goods. The product at the centre of these proceedings is the domestic toaster. There are two relevant types of toaster: hot-wall and cool-wall. The names speak for themselves. In recent years cool-wall toasters have emerged as a popular, safer product - at least to the extent that there is a considerably reduced chance of contact burns from that form of toaster. Cool-wall toasters have plastic walls and insulating material between the wall and the heating element. However, the older form of toaster, without such insulation and with metal sides, continues to be manufactured and sold in large numbers. As John Malin, Group Secretary of Alba plc, says at paragraph 2 of his witness statement - "...... a large number of customers continue to buy hot-wall toasters and there are millions of hot-wall toasters in use throughout the United Kingdom". Until recently, cool-wall toasters were more expensive. That is no longer the position.
2. The supply onto the market of products such as electrical toasters is regulated, insofar as the safety of the products is concerned, by the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994, SI 1994/3260 ("the 1994 Regulations"). These Regulations were made under section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, and section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. The Regulations are intended to implement, in the United Kingdom, the requirements of Council Directive 73/23/EEC on the harmonization of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits ("the Low Voltage Directive").
3. It will be necessary in the course of this judgment to consider the terms of the Directive and the Regulations in some detail. 4. The Applicants commenced these jud...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
F & I Services Ltd, R (On The Application Of) v Customs & Excise, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 14, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 327




Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL

Friday 14th April 2000
B e f o r e

THE HON. MR JUSTICE CARNWATH

R -V- COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
EX PARTE F & I SERVICES LTD

AND

F & I SERVICES LIMITED
-V-
COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

__________
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2HD
Tel No: 0171 421 4040 0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
__________

Mr Michael Kent QC and Mr Rupert Anderson (instructed by Solicitors of HM Customs and Excise New Kings Beam House 22 Upper Ground London SE1 9PJ) appeared on behalf of HM Commissioners of Customs and Excise.

Mr Roderick Cordara QC and Miss Perdita Cargill-Thompson (instructed by Messrs Hutchinson Mainprice & Co, 80- Ebury Street London SW1W 9QD appeared on behalf of F & I Services Ltd
__________

Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©



The Hon. Mr Justice Carnwath:

Part I - The Appeal
Introduction

I have before me an appeal from a decision of the VAT Tribunal (Mr Nicol and Mr Khan) dated 26th February 1999. (The related application for judicial review against the Commissioners of Customs and Excise will be considered in Part II.) The facts relevant to the appeal are fully set out in the Tribunal's decision and it is unnecessary to do more than summarise them.
The appeal concerned a proposed scheme, whereby books of vouchers would be sold to car dealers for them to offer to purchasers of cars. Each voucher was for a specified sum which could be used towards the purchase of goods or services with a named retailer (for instance The Sock Shop or Harvester Restaurants), or of mechanical breakdown insurance provided through the car dealer. The total nominal value of the vouchers in each book was approximately £2,200. They were sold to car dealers for the price of £10.40 each, and by the car dealers to their customers at a nominal price of £300, included as part of the overall price of the car (there is a dispute whether it represents the true price for the vouchers). The scheme was devised by the appellants ("F&I") who had an established business relationship with a car dealer network. They arranged for a company called Entertainment Publications Ltd ("EP") to design and produce the voucher booklet and to contract with the retailers named in the vouchers. It was accepted by F&I that VAT was chargeable on the supply of books to the car-dealers, but it was hoped to avoid...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Director Of Public Prosecutions v Ramos, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 14, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 328

- 1 -





Case No: CO/20/2000

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION)
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Friday 14th April 2000

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY
and
MR JUSTICE BUTTERFIELD

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




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2HD
Tel No: 0171 421 4040 0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Richard Carey-Hughes (instructed by CPS for the appellant)
John Skinner (Solicitor Advocate)(for the respondent)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Camelot Group Plc, R (on the application of) v National Lottery Commission, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, September 21, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 391



- 1 -
Case no: CO/3085/2000

IN THE high court of justice
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
CROWn OFFICE

Royal Courts of justice
Strand, London, wc2a 2ll

Thursday, 21 September, 2000

Before:

The honourable mr justice richards

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

The Queen
- and -
The National Lottery Commission
Respondent
Ex parte

Camelot Group plc
Applicant
____________________
(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 D. PANNICK QC and MR T. DE LA MARE (instructed by Baker McKenzie & Co) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
MR J. CROW and MR M HOSKINS (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
MR N PLEMMING QC and MISS A FOSTER (instructed by Clifford Chance LLP) appeared on behalf of GTECH
____________________

Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE RICHARDS:
The National Lottery is currently operated under a seven year licence by Camelot Group Plc ("Camelot"). The licence expires on 30 September 2001. Responsibility for the award of a new licence with effect from 1 October 2001 lies with the National Lottery Commission ("the Commission"). In 1999 the Commission established a competitive procedure for the award of the new licence and bids were subsequently received from Camelot and The People's Lottery ("TPL"). After a lengthy process of evaluation, involving an extension to the original timetable, the Commission announced on 23 August 2000 that it had decided (1) that neither of the bidders' plans met the statutory criteria for granting a licence, and the competitive procedure for the new licence was at an end, and (2) to proceed on the basis of a new procedure under which it would negotiate exclusively with TPL for one month.
By these proceedings Camelot challenges the legality of the Commission's decision to operate the new procedure of exclusive negotiation with TPL. On 29 August Elias J granted Camelot permission to apply but refused interim relief. The case has now come before me to decide the substantive application. Camelot is represented by Mr David Pannick QC and the Commission by Mr Jonathan Crow.
GTECH, the supplier of gaming software and terminals to Camelot, has been served with the application and has appeared, represented by Mr Nigel Pleming QC. Mr Crow, whilst not actively opposing GTECH being heard, raised a number of questions for the assistance of the court concerning GTECH's standing. He submitted that GTECH is not a person directly affected by the decision within CPR Schedule 1 RSC Order 53 r.5(3) and cannot be heard under r.9(1) because that applies only to persons desiring to be heard in opposition to an application; and, if the court has an inherent discretion to hear a person in support of an application, it is doubtful whether GTECH can add to what Camelot has to say and thereby assist the court. I have not found it necessary to decide whether GTECH is a person directly affected. In my view the court has a discretion to hear a person even where that person does not come within r.5(3) or r.9(1). Any doubt about that will be removed in any event by the new rules due to come into force on 2 October: CPR rule 54.17, as contained in the schedule to the Civil Procedure (Amendment No.4) Rules 2000, SI 2000 No.2092, confers an express power to allow any person to make representations at the hearing. I have exercised what I perceive to be my existing discretion in favour of GTECH. In doing so I have had particular regard to the impact of the Commission's decision on GTECH, even if such impact is indirect, and to the limited additional time required for consideration of Mr Pleming's commendably brief written and oral submissions. Should it ever become important, it remains open to GTECH to contend that it is entitled to appear anyway as a person directly affected.
TPL was also served with the application but has not appeared.
Statutory framework
The governing statute is the National Lottery Etc. Act 1993, as amended by the National Lottery Act 1998. Section 1 of the 1993 Act creates the National Lottery and requires it to be promoted by a body licensed under section 5. Section 3A, which was introduced by the 1998 Act, establishes the Commission, to which are transferred the functions previously conferred or imposed on the Director General of the National Lottery.
Section 4 lays down overriding duties of the Secretary of State and the Commission. Substituting references to the Commission for references to the Director General, its material provisions read:
"(1) The Secretary of State and (subject to any directions that may be given by the Secretary of State under section 11) the Commission shall each exercise their functions under this Part in the manner they consider the most likely to secure - that the National Lottery is run, and every lotter...
[/align]