Case Summaries: 5 October1998

Click to follow
The Independent Culture
The following notes of judgments were prepared by the reporters of the All England Law Reports.

Practice

Ocean Marine Mutual v Fai General Insurance; QBD (Commercial Ct) (Tuckey J) 16 July 1998.

A claim for the return within the jurisdiction of a premium paid under a contract of reinsurance which was governed by English law following an avoidance for misrepresentation or non-disclosure was a claim which "otherwise affects a contract" for the purposes of RSC Ord 11 r 1, and the court accordingly had jurisdiction to grant leave to add by amendment such a claim to a claim where leave to serve the writ out of the jurisdiction had been given under under Ord 11 r 1.

Andrew Popplewell QC, Helen Davies (Barlow Lyde & Gilbert) for the plaintiffs; Jeffery Onions QC (Clyde & Co) for the defendant.

Medicines

R v Family Health Services Appeal Authority, ex p Elmfield Drugs Ltd and ors; CA (Stuart-Smith, Swinton Thomas, Aldous LJJ) 23 July 1998.

Medical practitioners who had applied to dispense medicines to patients living more than one mile away from the nearest pharmacy could delegate the supply of the medicines to another. There was no basis for imposing on doctors, who ex hypothesi had prescribed or ordered the medicines for their patients, a stricter regime than on pharmacists.

Duncan Ouseley QC, Jonathan Fisher (Charles Russell) for the appellants; Michael Beloff QC, Michael Soole (Lockharts) for the interested parties.

Town and country planning

R v Newbury District Council and anor, ex p Chieveley Parish Council; CA (Hobhouse, Pill, Judge LJJ) 23 July 1998.

The scale or quantum of a development, such as gross floor space, was not a "reserved matter" within the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988. An outline application for planning permission which specified the floor area accordingly committed those concerned to a development on that scale, subject to minimal changes and to such adjustments as could reasonably be attributed to siting, design and external appearance.

Robin Purchas QC, Suzanne Ornsby (Berwin Leighton) for the parish council; John Steel QC, Rabinder Singh (Legal Services, Newbury District Council) for the district council.

Solicitors' negligence

Yudt and ors v Leonard Ross & Craig (a firm) and ors; Ch Div (Ferris J) 24 July 1998.

Whilst solicitors acting for trustees had to be regarded as owing to the beneficiaries the same duties of care in tort as they owed to the trustess in both contract and tort, the position might be different where the plaintiff was a person who had never become a benficiary in any true sense, but was rather a disappointed beneficiary under a disposition which had not been made at all because of the solicitors' negligence.

James Munby QC, Richard Fawls (Ralph Davis) for the plaintiffs; Edward Bannister QC, Vivian Chapman (Barlow Lyde & Gilbert) for the defendants.

Trademarks

Scandecor Development AB v Scandecor Marketing AB and anor; CA (Sir Stephen Brown P, Otton, Mummery LJJ) 23 July 1998.

The questions which arose when considering the entitlement to the use of a trademark were, in general, questions of fact, and there were accordingly no quick, easy or cheap answers to be found in hard and fast legal rules, in binding precedents or in clear-cut factual and legal presumptions.

Roger Wyand QC, Denis Daly (Morgan Lewis & Bockius) for the appellant; David Young QC, Thomas Hinchcliffe (Reynolds Porter Chamberlain) for the respondents.

Harbour

R v Carrick District Council, ex p Prankerd; QBD (Crown Office List) (Lightman J) 24 July 1998.

The words "charges in respect of . . . using the harbour" in s 57 of the Harbours Act 1964 were, on their true construction, confined to charges for the use of the harbour as a harbour, or the infrastructure or essential installations of a harbour, and did not extend to charges for the use of any additonal or optional services. Mooring charges did not therefore constitute "ship dues" for the purposes of s 26(3) of the Act, and there was no right to distrain a vessel for non-payment of such charges.

The applicant in person; Timothy Mould (Carrick District Council) for the respondent; Timothy Brenton QC (Treasury Solicitor) as amicus curiae.

Comments