R v Lucien; CA (Cr Div) (Swinton-Thomas LJ, Waterhouse, Wright JJ); 23 Feb 1995.
For the purposes of s78(2), Customs & Excise Management Act 1979, anything "carried" by a person entering or leaving the UK meant carriage by sea, air or, in the light of modern engineering (ie the Channel tunnel) by train.
However, customs officers should be cautious when seeking to obtain articles of clothing from suspects for the purposes of investigation and examination in reliance on s78.
Peter Fortune (Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the appellant; Joanna Glynn (Customs & Excise) for the Crown.
Scott & anr v Westminster City Council; CA (Nourse, Waite LJJ, Sir Tasker Watkins); 27 Jan 1995.
For the purposes of s149(2), Highways Act 1980, a hot chestnut brazier which was stationed on the highway did not have to be left for an appreciable time without anyone near it for it to have been "deposited" on the highway. Such a brazier, with a person selling chestnuts next to it, and which obstructed the highway, was therefore "a thing unlawfully deposited on the highway" within the section and could be removed forthwith by the highway authority.
Simon Blackford (council solicitor) for the defendant; Charles Salter (Wilson Barca) for one of two plaintiffs (who sought the return of their braziers on the ground they were unlawfully removed).
Jones & anr v Secretary of State for Wales & anr; CA (Balcombe, Roch, Saville LJJ); 1 Feb 1995.
Although it was usually undesirable for a person holding quasi-judicial office to be exposed to cross-examination, if in a planning case there was evidence before the court which, unless explained, could lead to an inference of improper behaviour by the inspector, the court should allow cross-examination on the affidavits.
Peter Village (Lawrence Graham, for Pitmans, Reading) for the appellants; Rhodri Price Lewis (Treasury Solicitor, council solicitor) for the respondents.
Vodaphone Cellular Ltd & ors v Shaw (Tax Insp); ChD (Jacob J); 3 Feb 1995.
A payment of £20m by Vodaphone to another company as consideration for the release of that company's rights to receive a fee from the taxpayer of 10 per cent of its pre-tax profits for a period of 15 years was a revenue, not a capital, payment. But it was not paid "wholly and exclusively" for the purposes of Vodaphone's business.
The payment was inevitably advantageous for the other members of the group and was to be regarded as partly made for their benefit.
Michael Flesch QC, Felicity Cullen (David Whitaker of Racal Group, FR Scott of Vodaphone Group Legal Services, and Stephenson Harwood) for the taxpayers; Launcelot Henderson (Inland Revenue) for the Crown.
Dean & Chapter of Cathedral of Metropolitan Church of Christ, Canterbury v Whitbread plc; ChD (Judge Roger Cooke); 30 Jan 1995.
In certain circumstances, in a holding over situation, the rent might be presumed to be the rent payable under the old tenancy; but if there was evidence the parties disagreed and one did not accept the rent should be the old rent, the presumption would not apply and the value was the market rent.
Anthony Radevsky (Lee Bolton & Lee) for the landlord; Louis Schaffer (Field Fisher Waterhouse) for the tenant.
R v Camden LBC, ex p Cran & ors; QBD (McCullough J); 11 Jan 1995.
A designation order introducing a controlled parking zone was quashed because consultation between the council and residents about the zone had not been fair and effective.
Mark Cran QC in person; Stephen Hockman QC, Peter Harrison (Borough Solicitor) for the council.