Law report: case summaries: 10 March 1997

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


Electricity Supply Nominees Ltd v Terrence Farrell & ors; CA (Kennedy, Peter Gibson LJJ, Buckley J) 3 Feb 1997.

The rule that interest on an award of costs ran from the date of judgment applied equally to a consent order unless its terms indicated otherwise. An intention that interest should run from the later date of taxation of costs could not be inferred from the standard recital that "such costs when taxed or agreed shall be paid . . ." The making of a final order did not disable the court which made it, otherwise functus officio, from making further orders (such as in the present case) regarding its enforcement.

Jeremy Morgan (Eversheds) for the plaintiff; Roger Stewart (Warner Cranston, and Reynolds Porter Chamberlain) for the second to fourth defendants.


Moore & anr v Gadd & anr; Re Farmizer (Products) Ltd; CA (Butler-Sloss, Peter Gibson, Potter LJJ) 2 Feb 1997.

An action brought by liquidators under s 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986 claiming contribution from directors who allegedly knew or reasonable ought to have known that liquidation was unavoidable ranked for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980 as a claim to "recover any sum recoverable by virtue of any enactment" and consequently became statute-barred on expiry of the six-year period under s 9(1) of that Act, such period starting to run from the date the company went into insolvent liquidation. The need to bring such proceedings "in the course of winding up" did not impose a limitation period as such and therefore could not operate to exclude the 1980 Act.

David Oliver QC (Dibb Lupton Broomhead) for the liquidators; Nigel Davis QC, Sarah Harman (Sprecher Grier) for the first defendant; Michael McParland (Edward Lewis & Co) for the second defendant.


R v Shaw; A-G's Reference No 28 of 1996; CA (Cr Div) (Lord Bingham CJ, Hidden, Holland JJ) 21 Jan 1997.

Prostitutes, like anyone else, were entitled to the law's protection, and to insist that they were unwilling to have sexual intercourse unless their partners were protected. Where a defendant insisted on sexual intercourse without protection, and without the woman's consent imposed his sexual demands by force, it was undoubtedly rape.

Mark Dennis (CPS) for the Attorney General; Michael Gledhill (Offenbach & Co) for the offender.