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.


Re Seagull Manufacturing Co Ltd; ChD (Mary Arden QC, deputy judge); 7 April 1993.

Section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 was subject to no territorial limitation and applied to anyone, whether or not they were a British subject, and irrespective of where the conduct complained of had occurred. The director's application for a declaration that the court had no jurisdiction over him, on the ground that at all material times he was resident and domiciled in Alderney, Channel Islands, and that leave to serve proceedings under the 1986 Act on him there should be set aside, was accordingly refused.

Paul Teverson (Rose & Birn) for the director; Nigel Davis QC (Treasury Solicitor) for the Official Receiver.


Ministry of Defence v Ashman and anor; CA (Lloyd, Kennedy, Hoffmann LJJ); 7 April 1993.

Where the separated wife of an airman stayed on in the married quarters which she and her husband had occupied at a concessionary rent as she was in no position to move, the mesne profits in an action possession should not be calculated by reference to the open market rent but by reference to what she would have had to pay for suitable local authority accommodation, had any been available.

Nicholas Huskinson (Parrott & Coales, Aylesbury) for the plaintiff; the defendants appeared in person.


R v Chief Superintendent of the Metropolitan Police, Ex p Wheeler; QBD (DC)(Evans LJ, Morland J); 31 March 1993.

Where a defendant had had his pit-pull terrier neutered, insured and a transponder inserter and a certificate of exemption was issued before the Dangerous Dogs Compensation and Exemption Schemes (Amendment)(No 2) Order 1991 (SI no 2636) came into force on 25 November 1991, the Index of Exempted Dogs was wrong to inform the defendant that the certificate had lapsed because he had not had his dog tattooed, since before 25 November there had been no statutory requirement to tattoo.

Claudia Lorenzo (Keppe Shaw & Co) for the applicant; Andrew Hill (Metropolitan Police Solicitor) for the chief superintendent; Richard McManus (Treasury Solicitor) for the Index of Exempted Dogs.


Re W(a minor); CA (Balcombe, Waite JJ); 5 April 1993

In view of the divergence of view on the test to be adopted where there are competing claims for residence between a natural parent and other parties, the preferred approach is that of Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR in Re H (1991) 2 FLR 109, at p 112 that there is a strong presumption that, other things being equal, it is in the interests of the child that it shall remain with its natural parents, but that has to give way to particular needs in particular situations.

Ian Peddie QC and Joanna Bond (Stephens & Scown, Exeter) for the appellant; Robert Alford (Crosse & Crosse, Exeter) for the respondent.

Handwriting evidence

Lockheeed-Arabia v Owen; CA (Ralhp Gibson, Mann, Nolan LJJ); 1 April 1993.

The evidence of handwriting experts in respect of a signature on a cheque, the original cheque having been photocopied on both sides before being placed in a safe which was later stolen, was admissible evidence even though the experts had not seen the original but had made their comparison from the photocopy since s 8 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1865 permitted the use of not only the original writing in dispute but also genuine photocopies of such writing. The passage in Phipson on Evidence (14th ed, 1990) at

p 369 suggesting that disputed writing, if lost, could not be compared with a photocopy was not supported by the authorities.

Edward Cohen (Philippsohn Neumann) for the appellant; Peter Cowan (Robert Davies & Co, Warrington) for the respondent.