Law Report: Case Summaries

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


R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex p Leeds Permanent Building Society; ex p National Provincial BS; QBD (Neill LJ, Mantell J); 12 May 1993.

That retrospective legislation had been introduced by Parliament in the course of proceedings rendering them abortive was not a factor which could lead to the Inland Revenue Commissioners being made responsible for costs. Even if there were grounds for thinking the legislation was at the behest of a government department, the decision to change the law was that of Parliament and it would need very careful consideration before costs would be awarded against a government department.

Nicholas Underhill QC (Clifford Chance) for the Leeds; Catherine Otton-Goulder (Slaughter & May) for National Provincial; Alan Moses QC (IRC solicitor) for IRC.

Judicial review

R v Imam of Bury Park, ex p Ali; CA (Balcombe, McCowan, Roch LJJ); 12 May 1993.

After a dispute over a voters' list for a mosque, the Imam was asked by the court, with the parties' consent, to prepare a list of voters according to the mosque's constitution. A subsequent application for judicial review of the Imam's decision was misconceived since the source of his power to compile the list was a court order and was founded on private contract law. There was insufficient public law element to give the court jurisdiction.

Mahmoud Nusrat (Austin Allen & Co, Luton) for the applicants; Ram Yajnik (Bland & Co, Luton) for the respondents.


Hanning & ors v Top Deck Travel Group Ltd; CA (Dillon, Kennedy LJJ, Sir Roger Parker); 5 May 1993.

The court will not recognise an easement established by illegal activity.

Michael Templeman and Barry Paton (Bartons, Guildford) for the appellant; Vivian Chapman (Michael Ambler & Co) for the respondent.


R v Minister for the Civil Service, ex p Lane; CA (Neill, Staughton, Roch LJJ); 19 March 1993.

Operational language allowances were paid to members of the Diplomatic Service for 'extra responsibility' and were 'granted on a permanent basis' and therefore satisfied both tests in para 2(iv) of Appx 1 to the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme 1974 to qualify as pensionable emoluments. But language continuation allowances satisfied neither test and were not pensionable emoluments under the scheme.

John Howell (Treasury solicitor) for the Treasury; Richard Drabble (Russell Jones & Walker) for the applicant.

Landlord and tenant

Eaton Square Properties Ltd v Beveridge; CA (Lloyd LJ, Sir David Croom-Johnson); 13 May 1993.

To effect forfeiture of a lease by peaceable re-entry, there must be an unequivocal act by the landlord coupled with the requisite intention to determine the lease, and not an intention to forfeit the leasehold estate as against a particular person.

Marc Dight (Maurice Hudgell & Co) for the tenant; Beverley-Ann Rogers (Boodle Hatfield) for the landlord.


Kelsall (Inspector of Taxes) v Investment Chartwork Ltd; ChD (Arden J); 14 May 1993.

A discretion conferred on the Board of Inland Revenue without express provision in the statute for appeal against its exercise was not reviewable by the general commissioners, who therefore had no jurisdiction to interfere with a direction by the board that a contribution to a director's pension fund was to be spread over five years rather than being deducted from the company's profits for the year in which it was paid.

E N Alms, a director of the company, in person; Timothy Brennan (Inland Revenue Solicitor) for the Crown.


Talbot v Berkshire County Council; CA (Nourse, Stuart- Smith, Mann LJJ); 12 March 1993.

Where the driver of a car involved in an accident, having been sued for personal injury damages by his passenger, had in turn joined the highway authority as a third party, alleging nuisance on the highway and negligence, and claiming a contribution as between joint tortfeasors in respect of the passenger's claim, after which the passenger had herself joined the highway authority as a second defendant, and had succeeded in her action, blame for her injuries being apportioned two-thirds to the driver and one-third to the highway authority, the driver could not then issue separate proceedings in respect of his own injuries against the highway authority, being estopped from so doing by the principle of res judicata. His claim against the highway authority should have been brought at the same time as the passenger's or included in his third party notice.

Dermod O'Brien QC and Daniel Crowley (Barlow Lyde & Gilbert) for the council; Stephen Miller QC and John Gimlette (Field Seymour Parkes, Reading) for the driver.