Law Report: Case Summaries

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

Appeals

Moran v University College Salford (Practice guidance: leave to appeal); CA (Glidewell, Evans, Waite LJJ); 26 Oct 1993.

The combined effect of the amendment to s 18 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 by the insertion of sub-sections (1A) and (1B) by s 7 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, which was brought into force partlyon 23 July 1993 and partly on 1 October 1993 under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (Commencement No 9) Order 1993 (SI 2132), and the amendment of RSC Ord 59 by the insertion of a new rule 1B by r 6(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules 1993, was to add considerably to the categories of case in which leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was now required.

By para (f) of r 1B appeals against all interlocutory orders of the High Court or any other court or tribunal now required leave except:

'(i) Where the liberty of the subject is concerned;

(ii) Where the residence, education or welfare of a minor is concerned;

(iii) Where an applicant for contact with a minor is refused all contact with the minor;

(iv) In the case of a decree nisi in a matrimonial cause'.

Lord Campbell of Alloway and Nan Alban-Lloyd (North Lewisham Law Centre) for the applicant; Joe Smouha (Eversheds Alexander Tatham, Manchester) for the university.

Costs

British Waterways Board v Norman; QB Div Ct (McCowan LJ, Tuckey J); 26 Oct 1993.

Costs were not properly incurred for the purposes of s 82(12) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 where an impoverished complainant, for whom legal aid was unavailable, had been told, by the firm of solicitors advising her under the Green Form Scheme, that she was not to worry about costs, since that assurance constituted an understanding amounting in law to a contract to the effect that if the complainant lost she could not be sued for costs, which was prohibited by r 8(1) of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990.

But though solicitors acting for such people should make it clear that there would be liability for costs, it did not follow that once the costs were determined, a solicitor was obliged to enforce his right to reclaim the costs incurred.

Duncan Matheson QC (Morris Putsman & Co, Birmingham) for the appellants; Elizabeth Norman (Michael Arnold, Oldbury, West Midlands) for the respondent.

Evidence

R v Hughes; CA (Cr Div) (Lord Taylor CJ, Schiemann, Wright JJ); 9 Nov 1993.

As defined by s 118(1) of the Criminal Evidence Act 1984, an 'intimate body search' meant the physical examination into a person's body orifices rather than the mere visual examination or any attempt to cause the person to extrude what was contained in the body through one of its orifices.

Peter Codner (Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the appellant; Susan L Evans (CPS) for the Crown.

Crime

R v Nealis; CA(Cr Div) (Steyn LJ, Ognall, Blofeld JJ); 17 Aug 1993.

A summing-up which was redolent with the insinuation that the defendant was not to be believed, and which totally disparaged and poured scorn on the defence case generally, was not saved from being unfair by the ritualistic formula that 'these are matters for you, the jury'.

However, unpromising this defendant's case, she was entitled to have it fairly considered by the jury. While a judge may sometimes comment strongly, that comment must always be so expressed that the defence was still fairly placed before the jury.

In this case, the defendant had been so deprived of the substance of a fair trial that there could be no question of applying the proviso: conviction and sentence must be quashed.

Tom MacKinnon (Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant; David Wurtzel (CPS) for the Crown.

Equal Pay

Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority & anr (Case C- 127/92); ECJ; 27 Oct 1993.

Where significant statistics disclosed an appreciable difference in pay between two jobs of equal value, one of which was carried out almost exclusively by women and the other predominantly by men, art 119 of the EC Treaty required the employer to show that the difference was based on objectively justified factors unrelated to any discrimination on the grounds of sex.

Anthony Lester QC and David Pannick QC (Robin Thompson & Partners) for Dr Enderby; Eldred Tabachnik QC and Adrian Lynch (Bevan Ashford) for Frenchay HA; Patrick Elias QC and Eleanor Sharpston (Treasury Solicitor) for the government of the United Kingdom.

Comments