LAW REPORTS: CASE SUMMARIES

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

Child

Re J (a minor: specific issue order); FD (Wall J); 14 Feb 1995.

The court had no jurisdiction under the Children Act 1989 to grant leave to a minor to apply for a specific issue order under s 8 requiring the local authority to deem him to be a child in need under s 17 and make appropriate provision for him. The question whether or not he was a child in need was not a specific question arising in connection with parental responsibility. It was a matter for the local authority, whose powers and duties under Part III of the Children Act should not be the subject of judicial scrutiny except by means of judicial review.

Vera Meyer (Council Solicitor) for the local authority; Stephen Cobb (S Harman, Canterbury) for the applicant.

Coroners

R v HM Attorney General, Ex p Ferrante; CA (Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Kennedy, Millett LJJ); 8 Feb 1995.

The Attorney General, in considering whether to give his authority for an application to the High Court under s 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 for the holding of another inquest, was entitled to have regard to the prospects of success of such an application.

Richard Gordon QC (Trump & Partners, Bristol) for the applicant; Stephen Richards (Treasury Solicitor) for the AG.

Evidence

R v Foxley; CA (Cr Div) (Roch LJ, Curtis, Stuart White JJ); 6 Feb 1995.

The wording of s 24(1)(ii) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (pursuant to which a statement in a document containing information supplied by a person with personal knowledge of the matters dealt with, was, subject to conditions, admissible in criminal proceedings as evidence of any fact of which direct oral evidence would be admissible) demonstrated that Parliament anticipated that courts could draw inferences as to the personal knowledge of the person supplying the information of the matters dealt with, the document speaking for itself, provided the two conditions in the subsection were satisfied. Direct oral evidence was not essential, although often desirable.

Roy Amlot QC, Christopher Sallon QC (Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the appellant; Victor Temple QC, Warwick McKinnon (CPS HQ) for the Crown.

VAT

Customs & Excise Commrs v Richmond Theatre Mgt Ltd; QBD (Dyson J); 30 Jan 1995.

VAT was to be accounted for when advance payment was received for tickets by a theatre management, not when the performance took place, notwithstanding the statement in the conditions of sale that the money was held on trust for the customer pending performance.

Kenneth Parker QC (Customs & Excise) for the Crown; the taxpayer did not appear.

Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Customs & Excise Commrs; Canadian Airlines Intl Ltd v Same; QBD (Turner J); 3 Feb 1995.

The provision of a limousine service to the airport for first class airline passengers was not for VAT purposes a supply separate from, but was incidental to, the supply of international air travel, which was zero-rated.

David Milne QC, Rupert Baldry (KPMG Peat Marwick and Legal Dept, Virgin Atlantic Airways) for Virgin; Kevin Prosser (Ashurst Morris & Crisp) for Canadian Airways; Stephen Richards (Customs & Excise) for the Crown.

Negligence

Defreitas v O'Brien and anor; CA (Leggatt, Swinton Thomas, Otton LJJ); 2 Feb 1995

Where an action for negligence was brought against a doctor, it was open to the judge, in considering whether the doctor had acted in accordance with a responsible body of medical opinion, to find as a fact that a small number of specialists constituted a responsible body and that that body would have considered the doctor's action justified.

Daniel Brennan QC and Charles Utley (Kingsley Napley) for the appellant; Piers Ashworth QC and Terence Coghlan QC (Hempsons) for the respondents.

Comments