LAW SUMMARIES

The following notes of judgments were prepared by the reporters of the All England Law Reports.

Child

B v B (minors) (variation of order for periodical payments); FD(Douglas Brown J); 9 Dec 1994.

Although an original order for periodical payments had been made under the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 which had been repealed without specific provisions for dealing with the variation of the old 1971 Act orders, the court had power to vary or discharge the order under s 16(1) of the Interpretation Act 1978 which preserved financial orders and the right to make applications to vary or discharge. The correct procedure was to apply by notice of motion.

David Harris QC (JA Coupland & Co, Carlisle) for the applicant; Robin Spon-Smith (Official Solicitor) as amicus curiae.

Company

Re Dominion International Group plc; ChD(Rattee J); 16 Dec 1994.

The court has jurisdiction to make an order under RSC Ord 38, r 2(3) requiring attendance for cross-examination of deponents who have sworn affidavits in disqualification proceedings.

Elizabeth Gloster QC and Richard Snowden (North & Co) for the respondent; AG Bompas QC (Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State.

Crime

R v Bow Street Justices, ex p McDonald; QBD(Dyson J); 14 Dec 1994.

Local authority officials had power to seize equipment used by an unlicensed entertainer in Leicester Square pursuant to a warrant issued under para 12 of the Local Government Act 1963, as inserted by the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1984 because Leicester Square fell within the statutory definition of "premises" and where Parliament had chosen to give the power of seizure it was not an abuse to issue a warrant where the sole purpose was seizure of equipment as opposed to entry to premises.

Charles Salter (Wilson Barca) for the applicant; Janet Spencer (City Solicitor) for Westminster City Council.

Evidence

R v Clarke; CA(Crim Div)(Steyn LJ, Mantell, Collins JJ); 9 Dec 1994.

No special rules applied to evidence of "facial mapping" by way of video superimposition. As in the case of fingerprint evidence, if it was not sufficiently intelligible to the jury, expert evidence should be called, but such evidence had to be carefullyscrutinised. Such expert evidence could assist the jury on the question of identification.

Stephen Leslie QC and Julian Nutter (Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the appellant; Christopher Ball QC and Patricia Lynch (CPS) for the Crown.

Patents

Gerber Garment Technology Inc v Lectra Systems Ltd; CA(Leggatt, Millett, Morritt LJJ); 22 Nov 1994.

A recital of the prior art in a patent constituted an admission which must necessarily carry great weight, but it did not stop the patentee or debar him from leading evidence to contradict it.

Nicholas Pumfrey QC and Iain Purvis (Needham & Grant) for the appellants; Christopher Floyd QC and Mark Vandegan (Greenwoods, Peterborough) for the respondents.

Sentence

R Dashwood; CA(Crim Div) (Lord Taylor of Gosforth CJ; Jowitt, Cresswell JJ); 6 Dec 1994.

There was no axiomatic approach to the sentence to be imposed in respect of a series of sexual offences on young girls by a youth of 14 and 15, when the offences were not brought to light until he was 29.

Roger Titheridge QC and Mark Norman (Bernard Chill & Axtell, Southampton) for the appellant; Alastair Malcolm (CPS) for the Crown.

Tax

NAP Holdings UK v Whittles (HMIT); HL(Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Juancey of Tullichettle, Lord Mustill, Lord Browne-Wilkinson and Lord Lloyd of Berwick); 17 Nov 1994.

The base cost in computing a chargeable gain realised in 1985 where a company disposed of shares in a subsidiary which it had acquired as a result of a company reorganisation from a fellow member of the group, in exchange for its own shares, was the original consideration given for the shares when first acquired by the group.

The Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, s 273 (1) (now Taxable of Chargeable Gains Tax Act 1992, s 171(1) applied rather than the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979, ss 78 and 85 (now ss 127 and 135 of the 1992 Act) under which the base cost would have been the value of the shares when acquired by the disposing company. The position is now governed by s 171(3) of the 1992 Act.

Edward Nugee QC and Nicholas Warren QC (Inland Revenue Solicitor) for the Crown; Andrew Thornhill QC and Kevin Prosser (Ashurst Morris & Crisp) for the taxpayer.