CASE SUMMARIES v 9 June 1997

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

Henwood (Inspector of es) v Clarke; Ch D (Ferris J) 6 May 1997.

There was a 50 per cent uplift in the cash equivalent of the taxable benefit to an employee where a car was made available to him for private use, and not more than 2,500 "business miles" were driven in a tax year. The uplift applied to each car separately if the car was replaced with a different one during the year, not to the total number of business miles travelled.

Timothy Brennan (Inland Revenue Solicitor) for the Crown; the taxpayer did not appear.

Watton (Inspector of es) v Tippett; CA (Simon Brown LJ, Peter Gibson LJ, Sir Iain Glidewell) 22 May 1997.

Rollover relief for replacement of business assets under s 115 of the Capital Gains Act 1979 was claimed in respect of a gain realised on the disposal of part of a single business asset (the old asset) and the apportioned cost of the retained part of the asset (the new asset). Although it was not necessary that the sale of the old asset should precede the acquisition of the new asset, the relief would not apply if the old asset and the new asset were acquired as a single asset.

Richard Bramwell QC (Harfield Pickering, Redditch) for the taxpayer; Launcelot Henderson QC (Inland Revenue Solicitor) for the Crown.


Abraham & anr v Thompson & ors; Ch D (Lloyd J) 12 May 1997.

There were circumstances, including but not limited to champerty, in which the court might stay a plaintiff's action because of the way it was being financed.

Michael Bloch (D.J. Freeman) for the fifth and sixth defendants; Kenneth MacLean (Clifford Chance) for the first plaintiff.


R v Bow Street Magistrates' Court, ex parte Allison; QBD Div Ct (Pill LJ, Astill J) 13 May 1997.

A magistrate, on an application by the US Government for the issue of a provisional warrant under para 5(1)(b) of Sch 1 to the Extradition Act 1989, had to determine whether a case was "urgent" within the meaning of that word in art VIII(1) of the United States of America (Extradition) Order 1976. The magistrate was not required to investigate the factual background which gave rise to the urgency, but only to judge the facts as they existed at the time the warrant was applied for. There was no justification for excluding from the category of urgent cases those where the urgency would not have arisen had the requested state taken action sooner.

Alun Jones QC, Helen Malcolm (Burton Copeland) for the applicant; James Lewis (CPS) for the respondents.


Crane & anr v Lancashire County Council; QBD Crown Office List (Popplewell J) 12 May 1997.

A Special Educational Needs Tribunal, when deciding whether a child should be educated at a mainstream school in order to receive the educational provision which his learning difficulty called for, or a special school nominated by the local education authority, had no need, for the purposes of s 160(2)(a) of the Education Act 1993, to consider the presumption in favour of mainstream schools or parental choice. However, when considering whether a mainstream school would be compatible with the efficient use of resources under s 160(2)(c), parental preference had to be balanced against cost.

David Wolfe (David Levene & Co) for the appellants; Rabinder Singh (Council Solicitor) for the respondents.


Customs & Excise v The Kilroy Television Co Ltd; QBD Crown Office List (Carnwath J) 19 May 1997.

Where a television company provided a buffet meal free to participants in a television programme and the meal was the only recompense they received for that participation, input tax could be credited on the supply of the meal as it had been provided in pursuance of a contractual obligation, and was not business entertainment within the meaning of Art 5 of the Value Added (Input ) Order 1992.

Alison Foster (Customs & Excise Solicitor) for the appellants; David Ewart (Pearlmans) for the respondent.

Local government

R v London Borough of Newham, ex p Gorenkin; QBD Crown Office List (Carnwath J) 13 May 1997.

The duty to provide care and attention under s 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948 only arose where persons were in need of accommodation. It was not, therefore, possible for the local authority to provide food vouchers to a political asylum seeker who had accommodation but was otherwise destitute.

Stephen Knafler (Clore & Co) for the applicant; Kelvin Rutledge (Council Solicitor) for the respondent.


Re Stevens and Holness; QBD Div Ct (Pill LJ, Astill J) 21 May 1997.

Where there were allegations of interference with a prosecution witness, a Crown Court judge had no power to remand an alleged contemnor in custody before a contempt had been proved. If a judge wished to make sure that an alleged contemnor was not at liberty for the rest of the trial he had either to adjourn the trial to deal with the summary trial of the contempt himself, or refer the matter to another judge. He could not remand the alleged contemnor in custody to await the decision of the Attorney General.

Colin Hutchison (Tyndallwoods, Birmingham) for the applicants; Philip Bown (CPS) for the respondent.


Re W (adoption; homosexual adopter); FD (Singer J) 10 Apr 1997.

There was nothing in the Adoption Act 1976 to prevent the making of an adoption order in favour of a single person who was living with another in a homosexual or lesbian relationship.

Jeremy Posnansky QC, Roger Bickerdike for the mother; Sally Cahill for the local authority; Joanna Trythall, solicitor for the guardian ad litem.