Royscott Commercial Leasing Ltd v Ismail - CA (Glidewell, Kennedy, Hirst LJJ), 29 April 1993.
The rule of mitigation of damages does not apply to a claim under a contract of indemnity as it is a claim for a debt due under a contract, not a claim for damages for breach of contract.
Bryan McGuire (Edge & Ellison, Birmingham) for the finance company.
R v Chambers - CA (Crim Div) (Watkins LJ, Henry, Pill JJ), 6 May 1993.
Although the conventional form of a direction to be given to a jury was merely a guide and no particular form of words was required, it was sensible when directing a jury on corroboration in cases of alleged sexual offences to give the two parts of the direction in the conventional order: directing first on the danger of convicting on uncorroborated evidence and then dealing in detail with what amounted to corroboration.
Penelope Barrett (Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the appellant; William Everard (CPS) for the Crown.
Air India v Balabel - CA (Stuart-Smith, Waite LJJ), 1 April 1993.
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1988, in relation to the refusal of consent by a landlord to the assignment of a lease, has not altered the law as stated by Balcombe LJ in International Drilling Fluids Ltd v Louisville Investments (Uxbridge) Ltd (1986) 1 All ER 321, 325.
The appellant in person; Gavin Lightman QC and Beverley-Ann Rogers (Hobson Audley) for the respondent.
Re C (a minor) - FD (Ward J), 4 May 1993.
On a local authority's application under Part III of Sch 2, para 23 to the Children Act 1989, for a contribution order in respect of the maintenance of a child being looked after by the local authority, the essential exercise for the court was strictly mathematical and was less concerned with the principle of a prior duty to maintain as required by the different criteria set out under para 4 of Sch 1 (application for a financial order). Therefore the court's essential task was to assess the contributor's means by reference to his available income and the manner in which he expended his income. When conducting that mathematical exercise, the court should have regard to wholly unreasonable expenditure such as flippant luxuries or irresponsible living. However, provided that the money had been expended reasonably, the court was not required to make a value judgment on the expenditure or be affected by notions of prior liability to maintain the child. When granting the order, the court should always state its findings of fact and reasons.
Ashe Lincoln QC and Craig M Barlow (Arnold Rosen & Co) for the appellant; John Reddish (County Solicitor, Surrey) for the council.
In Re Anderson, the Independent, 24 April 1993, the second part of the two stage process described should have read 'secondly, he had to receive evidence as to the factual matter of whether the applicant was unlawfully at large, applying a criminal standard of proof . . .'Reuse content