Welcome to the new Independent website. We hope you enjoy it and we value your feedback. Please contact us here.


Case Summaries: 12 July 1999

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


Khan v Islington London Borough Council; CA (Brooke, May, Laws LJJ) 10 June 1999.

WHERE, FOLLOWING the making of an order for possession on Ground 10 of Pt 2 of Sch 2 to the Housing Act 1985, a secured tenant received a home loss payment under s 29(1) of the Land Compensation Act 1973, the council was entitled to deduct arrears of rent from the home loss payment. There was nothing to prevent such an equitable set-off in the 1973 Act.

Andrew Nicol QC, Stephen Reeder (Marcus Marnett) for the appellant; Mark Lower QC, Ranjit Bhose (Marie Rosenthal) for the council.


Attorney General's Reference (No 1 of 1999); CA, Crim Div (Henry LJ, Holland, Hallett JJ) 10 June 1999.

WHERE A person made a threat to a witness via a third party, with the intention that the third party would pass on the threat to the witness and that the witness would be intimidated by the threat, the offence of witness intimidation contrary to s 51(1) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 was made out.

David Perry (CPS) for the Attorney General; Mark Harris (Treasury Solicitor) as amicus curiae.

R v Gogana; CA, Crim Div (Rose LJ, Michael Wright, Kay JJ) 14 June 1999.

WHEN NEW evidence was proferred to the Court of Appeal, particularly where it was suggested that a witness who had previously made a statement was subsequently prepared to give evidence to a quite different effect, the court had to be supplied with affidavit evidence from all those involved in the taking of the new statement. The circumstances in which the statement had come into existence were highly relevant to its potential credibility.

Janet Ruscoe (Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the appellant; Jonathan Eley (CPS) for the Crown.


North Holdings Ltd v Southern Tropics Ltd and ors; CA (Morritt, Aldous LJJ) 17 June 1999.

WHERE A petition was brought seeking an order for the sale of shares between shareholders under s 461 of the Companies Act 1985, the new Civil Procedure Rules required that the Registrar should give directions to enable the petition to be brought on for trial efficiently, quickly, and as inexpensively as possible. The approach to be adopted was set out in e 1.4(2), and ample use should be made of the power to require valuation of the shares by a joint expert or assessor.

Michael Todd, Mary Stokes (Hughes Watton) for North Holdings; Edward Bannister QC, Philip Hoser (Schilling & Lom & Partners) for the respondent.


Glennie v Independent Magazines (UK) Ltd; CA (Brooke, May, Laws LJJ) 17 June 1999.

IT WAS the duty of an applicant to an industrial tribunal to bring forward the whole of his case at the proper time. The Employment Appeal Tribunal could, therefore, only find that justice required that he should be allowed to take a new point in exceptional circumstances where the new issue went to the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunal and it was a discrete issue without the need for new factual enquiries.

Lee Gerrard (Keene Marsland) for the applicant; Nicholas Randall (Rowe & Maw) for the respondent.

Custody time limits

R v Leeds Crown Court, ex p Whitehead; QBD, Div Ct (Auld LJ, Hughes J) 17 June 1999.

WHERE A trial had been aborted after the jury had been sworn, although the trial judge should be vigilant to protect the accused's interests by taking steps to order a speedy retrial, considering bail, or even staying the prosecution as an abuse of process, the custody time limit regime in the Proscution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) Regulations 1987 was inapplicable.

Kris Gledhill (Nicholas Green, Halifax) for the applicant; Guy Kearl (Solr for Customs and Excise) for the Crown.


R v Oxford Crown Court, ex p Monaghan; QBD, Div Ct (Roch LJ, Collins J) 18 June 1999.

WHERE A Crown Court, in passing sentence on a defendant, had failed to make any reference to the main and decisive feature of mitigation, and had failed to give any reasons for adopting the method of dealing with the defendant which it had adopted, the sentence was materially flawed and the High Court had jurisdiction to intervene by way of judicial review.

Anthony Montgomery (Stephanie Dale & Co, Hove) for the applicant; John McGuinness (CPS) for the Crown.