THE following notes of judgments were prepared by the reporters of the All England Law Reports.
R v Hallam & anr; CA (Cr Div) (Beldam LJ, Ognall, Harrison JJ); 26 May 1994.
The Theft Act 1968, which was passed to reform and simplify the law of larceny, had itself become over-complicated and was in urgent need of modernisation and simplification, so that a jury of 12 ordinary citizens did not have to grapple with concepts couched in the arcane Franglais of 'chose in action' and so that public resources of time and money were not devoted to hours of semantic argument divorced from the real merits of the case.
Peter Digney, Frank Gillibrand (both assigned by Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the appellants Hallam, Blackburn; Stephen Waller (CPS, Fraud Div) for the Crown.
Commons Baron Dynevor v Richardson; ChD (Knox J); 17 May 1994.
Rights of Common were registered within the meaning of s 1(2)(b) of the Commons Registration Act 1965 whether the registration was provisional or final.
Colin Sydenham (Denton Hall Burgin & Warren) for the plaintiff; Nigel Thomas (Mary Evans & Co, Carmarthen) for the defendant.
Fraud R v Smithson; CA (Cr Div) (McCowan LJ, Morland, Buckley JJ); 5 May 1994.
The Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against an order made under s 9(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 by a judge conducting a preliminary hearing in a serious fraud case. The power to order the Crown to produce a case statement under s 9(4) was discretionary, and the exercise of that discretion, being a matter for the judge in the management of the case, did not involve a question of law. To permit appeals from such rulings would defeat the object of the Act.
Andrew Collins QC, Simon Stafford-Michael (Betesh Fox & Co, Manchester) for the appellant; Richard Latham QC, Derek Sweeting (Treasury Solicitor) for the Crown.
Investment Hughes v Asset Managers plc; CA (Nourse, Hirst, Saville LJJ); 13 May 1994.
The effect of s1 of the Prevention of Frauds (Investment) Act 1958 was not to render void agreements made by a person who at the time of making the agreements did not hold a representative's licence. The Act's purpose was to protect the investing public by imposing criminal sanctions upon those who, as principals or agents, engaged in the business of dealing in securities without being duly licensed, but did not include a requirement that any deals made by unlicensed persons should be struck down and rendered ineffective.
Michael Miller QC, John Fox (Harfied Pickering, Redditch) for the appellants; Philip Heslop QC, Josephine Hage (DJ Freeman & Co) for the respondents.
Land registration Clark & anr v Chief Land Registrar; Chancery plc v Ketteringham; CA (Nourse, Kennedy, Roch LJJ); 4 May 1994.
A caution against dealings, lodged in respect of registered land, gave the cautioner no more than a right to be warned of a proposed dealing or entry on the register, and did not enable the cautioner to assert priority for the interest over a subsequently registered charge. A charging order on land held on trust for sale under the provisions in s 2(1)(b) of the Charging Orders Act 1979 was effective to charge the land, not merely interests in proceeds of sale.
John Munby QC, Peter Crampin QC (Treasury Solicitor) for the Chief Land Registrar; Edward Nugee QC, T Jock Craven (Hunters) for the first plaintiffs; Anthony Allston (Hobson & Arditti) for the second plaintiff; Daniel Gerrans (Trevanions, Parkstone) for Mr Ketteringham; Ernest Scammell (Fladgate Fielder) for Chancery plc.
Landlord & tenant WH Smith Ltd v Wyndham Investments Ltd; ChD (Judge Paul Baker QC); 18 May 1994.
The original lessee of an assigned lease continued to be liable for the rent after the assignee had gone into liquidation and the liquidator had disclaimed the lease.
Nicholas Patten QC, John McGhee (Bircham & Co) for the plaintiffs; Lawrence Cohen QC, Elizabeth Weaver (Edge & Ellison) for the defendants.
In Hughes v Asset Managers plc, the Independent, 13 June 1994, Joseph Hage appeared for the respondents.Reuse content