Law Reports: Case Summaries

Law Reports: 8 November 1999
Click to follow
THE FOLLOWING notes of judgments were prepared by the reporters of the All England Law Reports.

Prisoner

R v Parole Board, ex p Robinson; QBD, Div Ct (Simon Brown LJ, Newman J) 29 July 1999.

WHERE A discretionary lifer panel of the Parole Board had decided that a prisoner who had been sentenced to life imprisonment should be released as it was satisfied that no evidence of significant risk to life or limb existed but had adjourned the matter so that an appropriate release plan could be formulated, and the matter came back before a different panel, it was not open to the second panel to reconsider the decision to release the prisoner.

Richard Gordon QC, Oliver Mishcon (Gowmans, Paignton) for the applicant; Richard McManus QC (Treasury Solicitor) for the respondent.

Contract

Director-General of Fair Trading v First National Bank plc; Ch D (Evans-Lombe J) 30 July 1999.

"GOOD FAITH" in reg 4(1) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1994, in the context of dealings between a bank and its customer borrowers, imposed a duty on the bank to deal with those customers fairly and openly. A term which was inherently unfair could still breach the requirement of good faith if it unfairly deprived consumers of a benefit or advantage which they might reasonably expect to receive, or which particular statutes or aspects of public policy could be construed as intending them to receive.

Ross Cranston QC, John McCaughran (Treasury Solicitor) for the director general; Lord Goodhart QC, Frederick Philpott (Davis & Co) for the bank.

Mortgage

Woolwich Building Society plc v Gomm and anor; CA (Peter Gibson, Ward, Clarke LJJ) 27 July 1999.

SECTION 199(1)(ii)(a) of the Law of Property Act 1925, which dealt with a purchaser's knowledge, did not require a bank or building society to act as a suspicious bank or building society would act, but only as a reasonably prudent bank or building society in the position of the plaintiff would act, having regard to its state of knowledge at any particular time.

Christopher Clark QC, Michael Dineen (Dickinson, Manser & Co, Poole) for the first defendant; Malcolm Waters QC, Neil Levy (Trumps, Bristol) for the plaintiff.

County court

Enfield London Borough Council v B and anor; CA (Waller, Buxton LJJ) 27 July 1999.

SECTION 152(1) of the Housing Act 1996 did not give the court power to grant an injunction for the protection of individuals, on the application of a local housing authority, simply by virtue of the fact that within the locality in which those individuals worked or otherwise engaged in any lawful activity there were residential premises. There had to be some nexus beteween the residential premises and the person whom it was sought to protect.

Ranjit Bhose (John Cawston) for the council; Mark Kelly (Leslie Brown & Co) for the second defendant.

Company

Re Blenheim Leisure (Restaurants) Ltd; CA (Nourse, Aldous, Tuckey LJJ) 26 July 1999.

WHERE A company seeking restoration of its name to the Register of Companies relied on s 653(2B)(c) of the Companies Act 1985 on the basis that "it is for some other reason just to do so", the court had a wide discretion which enabled it to take account of the rights of third parties which could be directly affected, and could, in considering whether or not to allow such restoration, have regard to intervening substantive rights which might have arisen after dissolution.

Clive Freedman QC, Timothy Dutton (Amhurst Brown Colombotti) for the appellants; Mark Warwick (Jeffrey Green Russell) for the respondents.

Crime

R v Nicholson; CA, Crim Div (Potter LJ, Judge Myerson QC and Sir Patrick Russell) 27 July 1999.

BEFORE THE terms of Code D.23 of the Codes of Practice issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 came into operation, there had to be what amounted to a purported visual identification of the accused by a witness. A mere assertion by an accused that he required an identification parade so as to rely upon the non-recognition of a witness simply for forensic purposes should not be regarded as triggering an obligation on the police to indulge in the trouble and expense of organising an identification parade.

Marion Smullen (Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the appel-lant; Jonathan Rees (CPS) for the Crown.

Comments