Case Summaries

THE FOLLOWING notes of judgments were prepared by the reporters of the All England Law Reports.

Planning

R v Broadland District Council & ors, ex p Dove; QBD (Crown Office List) (George Bartlett QC) 26 Jan 1998.

The concerns of objecting local residents about the nature and character of potential residents of a proposed development were capable of amounting to material considerations for the purposes of s 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, because the concerns were essentially about anti-social behaviour, and any such behaviour would be attributable to the nature of the proposed use.

Barry Payton, Philip Norman (Hansell Stevenson, Norwich) for the applicants; Robin Barratt QC (Steele & Co, Norwich) for the council; Nathalie Lieven (Greenland Houchen, Norwich) for the second and third respondents.

Extradition

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Agkurt; QBD (Div Ct) (Kennedy LJ, Maurice Kay J) 13 Feb 1998.

Section 13(2) of the Extradition Act 1989 placed a burden on an applicant liable to be returned to a convention country to raise any issue he wished to have considered by the Secretary of State. Those representations having been made, the Secretary of State should respond, even if only briefly, before or at the time he makes the order pursuant to s 12(2), so that the applicant knows his representations have been received and considered.

Alun Jones QC (Robin F. Clark & Co, Gravesend) for the applicant; Neil Garnham (CPS) for the respondent; John Hardy (Treasury Solicitor) for the Government of Italy.

VAT

Network Insurance Brokers Ltd v Customs and Excise Commrs; QBD (Moses J) 12 February 1998.

Commission received for arranging fixed-price funerals for the members of an affinity group to be supplied by another organisation did not fall within the exemption for "making of arrangements for or in connection with the disposal of the remains of the dead" within Sched 9, Group 8, item 2 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994. The exemption was limited to supplies such as would be likely to be provided by undertakers.

Andrew Hitchmough (Springthorpe Holcroft & Bishop, Birmingham) for the taxpayer; Robert Jay (Solicitor, Customs and Excise) for the Crown.

Capital Gains Tax

Goodwin v Curtis (HMIT); CA (Millett, Schiemann LJJ, Sir Brian Neill) 18 Feb 1988.

The general commissioners were entitled to conclude that occupation of a house for only a month while it was on the market did not constitute "residence" to qualify for an exemption from capital gains tax for private residences within s 222 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992.

David Ewart (Eric Robinson & Co) for the taxpayer; Timothy Brennan (IR Solicitor) for the Crown.

Tax

Bestway (Holdings) Ltd v Luff (HMIT); ChD (Lightman J) 20 Feb 1998.

Buildings used as wholesale supermarkets selling goods to small retailers were not "industrial buildings" within the meaning of s 18(1) of the Capital Allowances Act 1990. The activities involved in packaging goods etc did not amount to subjecting the goods to any process within s 18(1)(e), nor were the goods kept for sale as soon as possible "stored" within s 18(1)(f).

David Goy QC, Aparna Nathan (Anthony Oberman & Co) for the taxpayer; Timothy Brennan (IR Solicitor) for the Crown.