Union Bank of Finland Ltd v Lelakis; QBD Comm Ct (Langley J) 11 June 1996.
A judgment debtor who had been served a notice under RSC Ord 48, r 1 to attend an examination before a master as to his means was not entitled to object to attending on the ground that conduct money had not been tendered to him, because the judgment creditor's solicitor had adequately tendered it by giving an undertaking in a letter to pay the debtor's reasonable costs of such attendance and by giving the notice in reasonable time before the return date.
Andrew Hochhauser, Pertida Cargill-Thompson (Watson Farley & Williams) for the plaintiffs; Steven Gee QC, Vasanti Selvaratnam (Holman Fenwick & Willan) for the defendant.
R v Ireland; CA (Crim Div) (Swinton Thomas LJ, Tucker, Douglas Brown JJ) 14 May 1996.
The making of silent telephone calls was capable of amounting to a relevant act for the purposes of the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The act consisted in the making of the call and it did not matter whether words or silence ensued.
Philip Richards (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the appellant; Christopher Llwellyn-Jones QC, Roger Griffiths (CPS) for the Crown.
Re Chetta; QB Div Ct (Henry LJ, Ebsworth J) 6 June 1996.
For the purposes of s 16 of the Extradition Act 1989, judicial review proceedings were instituted when a notice of motion applying for leave to apply for judicial review was made and lodged with the Crown Office, since that showed that the applicant has sought the court's protection. The Home Secretary's policy not to give reasons for ordering a fugitive offender's return to a requesting country until after leave had been granted was arguably wrong, since the requirement to give reasons was to enable a potential applicant to know the grounds relied on by the Home Secretary so he could decide whether to apply for judicial review.
The applicants in person in the habeas corpus proceedings; James Lewis, James Hardy (Andrew McCooey, Sittingbourne) for the applicants in the judicial review proceedings; Rabinder Singh (Treasury Solicitor) for the respondent.
India Steamship Co v Louis Dreyfus Sugar Co Ltd; the Indian Reliance; QBD Comm Ct (Rix J) 11 June 1996.
The owner of a sub-chartered vessel was not entitled to intercept bills of lading to claim the freight and lien the subcharterer's cargo on the basis of freight being unpaid. The phrase "freight payable as per charterparty" in the bills of lading meant not only the rate of freight but all the details of the payment clause of the sub-charter. Accordingly, payment of the freight by the sub- charterer to the nominated account of the time-charterer amounted to payment under the charter. Therefore the owner was not entitled to claim the freight from the sub-charterer even though the time-charterer had not paid the time charter hire and had become insolvent.
Angus Glennie QC (Zaiwalla & Co) for the plaintiffs; Anthony Havelock- Allan QC (Richards Butler) for the defendants.
Johnson (HMIT) v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd; ChD (Robert Walker J) 15 May 1996.
Certain management expenses which were deductible in a Sch D, case 1 calculation were not deductible in an assessment to corporation tax made on an income minus expenses calculation. By virtue of s 75(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 expenses could not be deducted which were "deductible in computing profits apart from this section". Therefore the taxpayer was not entitled to deduct the expenses which were deductible in both a Sch D, case 1 loss calculation and an income minus expenses calculation.
Christopher McCall (Inland Revenue) for the Crown; Peter Whiteman QC (Group Legal Services, Prudential Corp plc) for the taxpayer.Reuse content