CASE SUMMARIES v 22 January 1996

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


Jonathan Alexander Ltd v Proctor; CA (Hirst, Peter Gibson LJJ, Buxton J); 19 Dec 1995

A company represented at trial by one of its directors with leave of the court was not a "litigant in person" within Ord 38, r 17 of the County Court Rules so as to enable it to recover its costs against the losing party.

Allen Dyer (Goodman Derrick) for the company; David Lord (Payne Hicks Beach) for the plaintiff.


R v Ham; CA (Crim Div) (Swinton Thomas LJ, Waterhouse, Harrison JJ); 1 Dec 1995

In deciding whether a defendant was mentally handicapped, an express finding based on medical evidence had to be made at trial as to whether he was mentally handicapped at the time he was interviewed by the police in the presence of the appropriate adult pursuant to code C11.14 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (s 66) Codes of Practices, 2nd ed, 1991.

Nigel Daniel (Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the appellant; John D Taylor (CPS) for the Crown.


Glengate-KG Properties Ltd v Norwich Union Fire Ins Soc and ors; CA (Neill, Auld LJJ, Sir Iain Glidewell); 21 Dec 1995

Architects' drawings destroyed in a fire at a building site were not property in which the site's developer had "an interest", within the meaning of the material damage proviso of an insurance policy covering consequential loss, so as to entitle the developer to claim under the policy for revenue lost through delay while fresh drawings were produced. Although an insurable interest could include property not belonging to the insured, these drawings fell within the ambit of the architects' responsibility, not that of the developers.

Charles Falconer QC, Andrew Moran (Berwin Leighton) for the developers; Roger Ter Haar QC, James Holdsworth (Greenwoods) for the insurers; Jeremy Cooke QC, Dominic Kendrick (Cameron Markby Hewitt) for the brokers.


R v Oliver; CA (Crim Div) (Roch LJ, Douglas Brown, Blofeld JJ); 24 Nov 1995

The direction to the jury who, under s 43 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, were to be allowed to separate during consideration of their verdict should contain the following matters: 1) The jury must decide the case on arguments seen and heard in court and not anything they might have seen or heard outside the court; 2) The evidence had been completed and it would be wrong for any juror to seek or receive information about the case; 3) The jury must not talk about the case to anyone save other members of the jury and then only in the jury room, nor must they allow anyone to talk to them save a fellow juror; 4) When they left court they should try to set the case on one side until they returned to court and retired to the jury room to consider their verdict.

Justin Wigoder (Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the appellant; Richard Griffith-Jones (DTI Solicitor) for the Crown.


Woolwich Building Society v Brown; QBD (Comm Ct) (Waller J); 14 Dec 1995

Where an insurance company had paid out to a mortgagee under a mortgage indemnity policy, it was entitled by a subrogated right to claim the money in the name of the mortgagee from the mortgagor. The indemnity insurance was not for the benefit of the mortgagor but for the benefit of the mortgagee, and therefore the mortgagor was not entitled to credit any sum that was paid or was payable by the insurer towards the mortgage debt and was liable to pay the full sum of the mortgage less only the proceeds of sale.

Robert Webb QC, David Fisher (Tucker Turner Kingsley Wood & Co) for the plaintiff; Andrew Smith QC, Richard Handyside (Cuthbertsons) for the defendant.

Correction: In R v HM Commissioners of Inland Revenue, ex p Dhesi, Case Summaries, 13 November and 14 August 1995, counsel for the prosecution was Jonathan Fisher.