Re M (a minor); CA (Butler- Sloss, Staughton, Hoffmann LJJ); 21 Dec 1993.
Where a substantial amount of fresh evidence had become available since the judge had ordered the return of an abducted minor to the jurisdiction of the Republic of Ireland, and the court was satisfied that art 13 of the Hague Convention applied, the court had a plain duty in exercising its discretion whether or not to order the minor to be returned to take into account the strongly held views of a 13-year-old minor who had reached a degree of age and maturity that his wishes should be considered.
Barry Singleton QC and Kharin Cox (Bindman & Partners) for the minor; John Reilly and Patrick Roche (Blakeneys) for the mother; the father in person; Allan Levy QC (Official Solicitor) as amicus curiae.
R v Canterbury and St Augustine Justices, Ex p Barrington; QBD(DC) (Simon Brown LJ, Morland J); 7 Dec 1993.
Where a summons related to an offence at the lower end of the spectrum of gravity and service at the defendant's only known address had proved impossible, the police were not obliged to be enterprising or imaginative in their efforts to trace the defendant by combing telephone directories to discover the whereabouts of his relatives or checking the community charge register. In such circumstances the police had not acted inefficiently and were not guilty of misconduct so as to cause the prosecution to be halted on the ground of abuse of process by reason of delay in the service of the summons.
Jonathan Ferris (Parrys, Herne Bay) for the applicant; Ian Foinette (CPS) for the prosecutor.
R v Kearley and anor; CA (Crim Div) (Lord Taylor of Gosforth LCJ, Schiemann, Wright JJ); 11 Nov 1993.
Although the plain meaning of the words of ss 1 and 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 was that the right of appeal of a person convicted and sentenced was of that person and no one else, the statutory framework of those sections with which the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, had to operate provided only for an appeal by a living person.
Marion Smullen; John Aspinall (Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the appellants; Andrew R Mitchell (CPS) for the Crown; James Curtis QC (Treasury Solicitor) as amicus curiae.
Beoco Ltd v Alfa Laval Co Ltd; CA (Balcombe, Stuart- Smith, Peter Gibson LJJ); 21 Dec 1993.
A heater exchanger at the plaintiff's works exploded causing damage to equipment and economic loss for lost production. The same principles were to be applied in contract as in tort in the assessment of damages for loss of profit and the plaintiff was not therefore entitled to recover damages which he would have incurred during the period necessary to repair the defect in goods or materials supplied by the defendant and caused by his breach of contract, where because of some supervening event those repairs were not carried out or were subsumed in more extensive repairs.
Timothy Stow QC and Freya Newberry (Davies Arnold Cooper) for the first defendants; Brian Knight QC and Tom Weitzman (Herbert Smith) for the plaintiffs.
Practice Direction: Intercountry adoptions: Transfer of proceedings; FD (Judge Gerald Angel); 23 Nov 1993.
The direction deals with the transfer of a proceedings in a county court under the Adoption Act 1976 concerning a child whose place of origin was outside the United Kingdom to the High Court.
Practice note: Fee for note of judgment; CA (Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Hoffmann, Henry LJJ); 13 Dec 1993.
Counsel's brief or refresher fee includes remuneration for taking a note of the court's judgment, having it transcribed, submitting it to the judge for approval, revising it and providing copies for the Court of Appeal, instructing solicitors and lay client. Accordingly, save in exceptional circumstances, there could be no justification for charging any additional fee for such work. Counsel, when required to attend on a later day to take a judgment not delivered at the end of the hearing, will ordinarily be entitled to a further fee for such attendance. This note replaces the Practice Note of 9 May 1989 (1989) 2 All ER 288; (1989) 1 WLR 605.
National Westminster Bank plc and anor v Inland Revenue Commissioners; Barclays Bank plc and anor v Same; CA (Dillon, Mann, Hirst LJJ); 15 Dec 1993.
Shares in business expansion scheme companies promoted by the banks were not 'issued' until they were entered in the register of members of the company, not on allotment to shareholders or when the intending shareholder became entitled to registration by a binding offer and acceptance.
Robin Potts QC and Kevin Prosser (Lovell White Durrant) for the banks; Anthony Grabiner QC and Launcelot Henderson (Inland Revenue Solicitor) for the Crown.
In Bailey v de Kerangat, the Independent, 10 Jan 1994, the solicitors for the plaintiff were Davies Grant & Horton.Reuse content