# أحكام المحاكم الأجنبية Decisions of Foreign Courts > أحكام المحكمة العليا بالولايات المتحدة الأمريكية >  England and Wales High Court of Justice

## هيثم الفقى

[align=left] 
Year 1993 






*R v Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration ex p. Dyer, Court off Appeal - Administrative Court, October 19, 1993, [1993] EWHC Admin 3*


CO-0651-9 
BAILII Citation Number: [1993] EWHC QB 3 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
(DIVISIONAL COURT) 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London W2 

Date: Tuesday, 19th October 1993 

B e f o r e: 

LORD JUSTICE SIMON BROWN 


-and- 

MR JUSTICE BUCKLEY 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

R E G I N A 

-v- 

THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION 
EX PARTE MONICA DYER 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph notes of John Larking 
Verbatim Reporters, Chancery House, Chancery Lane, London WC2 
Telephone No:  *  071 404 7464*   071 404 7464 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

MR S RICHARDS (Instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Respondent. 
THE APPLICANT appeared in Person. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

JUDGMENT 
Tuesday, 19th October 1993 Lord Justice Simon Brown: This is an application by Miss Monica Dyer for judicial review of a decision of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (hereafter the PCA) dated 20th December 1991 not to re-open his investigation into her complaints against the Department of Social Security. Those complaints were many and various with regard to ...


[/align]

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p. Bentley, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 07, 1993, [1993] EWHC Admin 2


CO/2912/92 
BAILII Citation Number: [1993] EWHC QB 2 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
(DIVISIONAL COURT) 
Royal Courts of Justice 

Date: Wednesday, 7th July 1993. 
Before: 
LORD JUSTICE WATKINS 
and 
LORD JUSTICE NEILL 
and 
MR JUSTICE TUCKEY 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Crown Office List 
THE QUEEN   v 
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT 
Ex parte IRIS PAMALA BENTLEY 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of John Larking, Chancery House, Chancery Lane, London WC2 
Telephone No:    071 404 7464   071 404 7464 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
MR D PANNICK Q.C. and MR M SHAW (instructed by Messrs B M Birnberg & Co., London, SE1) appeared on behalf of the Applicant. 
MR S RICHARDS and MR R SINGH (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Respondent. 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
JUDGMENT 
LORD JUSTICE WATKINS: This is the judgment of the Court. 
Iris Pamala Bentley, the applicant for judicial review, has been campaigning for almost 4O years to obtain recognition of what she and many other people regard as a gross miscarriage of justice in the case of her brother, Derek Bentley. She wants that recognition to take the form of a posthumous Free Pardon for him. That, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, the Secretary of State for the Home Department (the Home Secretary), by a decision which was announced on l October l992, declined to recommend. 
That is the decision which we have been asked by the applicant to review. The relief which she seeks, and for which she has the leave of this Court to apply, is a declaration that the Home Secretary erred in law in declining to recommend a posthumous Free Pardon for Derek Bentley and mandamus to require the Home Secretary to reconsider the matter. Bentley, then l9 years of age, was convicted, together with Christopher Craig, at the Central Criminal Court on ll December l952 before Lord Goddard, Chief Justice, of the murder of Police Constable Sidney George Miles at C...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
R. v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex p. Rees-Mogg, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 30, 1993, [1993] EWHC Admin 4


No: CO 2040 93 
BAILII Citation Number: [1993] EWHC QB 4 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
(DIVISIONAL COURT) 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Date: Friday, 30th July 1993 
B e f o r e : 
LORD JUSTICE LLOYD 
LORD JUSTICE MANN 
and 
MR JUSTICE AULD 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 
R E G I N A 
v 
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS 
EX PARTE LORD REES MOGG 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of John Larking, Chancery House, Chancery Lane, London WC2 Telephone No:    071 404 7464   071 404 7464 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
MR D PANNICK QC, MR K LINDBLOM, MR R THOMPSON and MR J CALLMAN (instructed by Gouldens, London EC4) appeared on behalf of the Applicant. 
MR S KENTRIDGE QC, MR S RICHARDS and MR D ANDERSON (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Respondent. 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
JUDGMENT 
Friday, 30th July 1993 LORD JUSTICE LLOYD: The applicant in these proceedings, the Rt. Hon. Lord Rees Mogg, seeks inter alia a declaration that the United Kingdom may not lawfully ratify the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7th February 1992. Mr Pannick QC advances three main arguments on his behalf. First, by ratifying the Protocol on Social Policy the Government of the United Kingdom would be in breach of section 6 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978. Secondly, by ratifying the Protocol, the Government would be altering the content of Community Law, without Parliamentary approval. Thirdly, by ratifying Title V of the Treaty, the Government would be transferring part of the Royal Prerogative to community institutions withou...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Universities Funding Council ex p. The Institute of Dental Surgery, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 30, 1993, [1993] EWHC Admin 5


No: CO 423 93 
BAILII Citation Number: [1993] EWHC QB 5 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
(DIVISIONAL COURT) 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Date: Friday, 30th July 1993 
B e f o r e : 
LORD JUSTICE MANN 
and 
MR JUSTICE SEDLEY 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 
R E G I N A 
v 
THE UNIVERSITIES FUNDING COUNCIL 
EX PARTE THE INSTITUTE OF DENTAL SURGERY 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of John Larking, Chancery House, Chancery Lane, London WC2 Telephone No:    071 404 7464   071 404 7464 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
MR D PANNICK QC and MR J HERBERG (instructed by Church Adams, Tatham & Co., Fulwood House, Fulwood Place, London WC1V 6HR) appeared on behalf of the Applicant. 
MR M BELOFF QC and MISS C BOOTH (instructed by Beachcroft Stanleys, 20 Furnival Street, London EC4A 1BN) appeared on behalf of the Respondent. 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
JUDGMENT 
Friday, 30th July 1993 
LORD JUSTICE MANN: I am sorry you have been kept waiting a few moments. I will ask Mr Justice Sedley to give the judgment of the Court. 
MR JUSTICE SEDLEY: This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Universities Funding Council as it then was, published on the 17th December 1992, to place the Institute of Dental Surgery, the applicant, at level 2 in its assessment of the quality of institutional research. The decision has direct implications for the level of government funding and indirect implications for the level of outside funding which the Institute can expect in the year 1993/4. Brooke J gave leave on the 3rd March 1993 to apply, with expedition, for a declaration that the respondent Council had erred in law in its assessment of the applicant Institute; certiorari to quash the decision, and mandamus to require the successor body, the Higher Education Funding Council, to reconsider the matter. 
The applicant Institute is a college of the University of London. Uniquely in the United Kingdom, it is entirely dedicated to postgraduate teaching and research in dentistry. The Universities Funding Council (UFC) was established by section 131 of the Education Reform Act 1988. It was established as a body corporate consisting of fifteen members appointed by the Secretary of State, six of them being engaged and experienced in higher education. By sub section (4) the Council was made responsible for administering central funds made available to it for the support of eligible activities, these being defined by sub section (5) as including the provision of education and the undertaking of research by universities. Sub section (6) gave the Council power to make grants for the prescribed purposes to the governing bodies of universities. Sub section (7) provides: 
"In exercising their functions in relation to the provision of financial support for activities eligible for funding under this section, the Council shall have regard to the desirability of not discouraging any university in respect of which grants are made under sub section (6) above from maintaining or developing its funding from other sources." 
Sub section (9) places an obligation on the governing body of any university to give the Council such information as it requires for the foregoing purpos...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
R v Secretary of State for Transport ex p. Richmond upon Thames LBC & Ors (No.1), Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, September 29, 1993, [1993] EWHC Admin 1


CO/2110/93 
BAILII Citation Number: [1993] EWHC QB 1 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 

Royal Courts of Justice, 
The Strand, 
London. WC2. 


Date:29 September 1993 


Before: 

MR. JUSTICE LAWS 

- - - - - - - - - - -- 


R E G I N A 


- V - 


THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT 

Ex Parte 

(1) THE COUNCIL OF THE LONDON 
BOROUGH OF RICHMOND UPON THAMES 
(2) THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD 
(3) TANDRIDGE DISTRICT COUNCIL 
(4) THE LONDON BOROUGH OF HILLINGDON 
(5) SLOUGH BOROUGH COUNCIL 


- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - 
(Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
John Larking, Chancery House, 53/64 Chancery Lane, London WC2 
Telephone No.    071 404 7464   071 404 7464 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 

- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - --- 

MR. RICHARD GORDON (Instructed by Richard Buxton, Cambridge) appeared on behalf of the Applicants. 

MR. I. BURNETT and MR MARK SHAW (Instructed by the Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Respondent. 


- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- 

JUDGMENT 




Wednesday 29th September 1993 

JUDGMENT 
MR. JUSTICE LAWS: On 6th July 1993 the Secretary of State for Transport announced his intention to introduce in October 1993 what is described in his press notice as "A tough new quota system of night flying restrictions to reduce noise at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted". The decision to introduce these measures is the subject of the judicial review now before me. Sedley J gave leave on 30th July 1993. The applicants are a number of local authorities for the areas around each airport. They say that their constituents, or inhabitants, will be adversely affected by the new regime if it comes into force. The respondent is of course the Secretary of State. 
Restrictions against night movements by aircraft at Heathrow have been in effect since 1962. Most recently a set of measures was introduced in 1988 which covered both Heathrow and Gatwick. Although, as I understand it, it has been updated from time to time, the regime of 1988 at present remains in force, but it is due to expire in October 1993, and it is the respondent's intention to substitute his new measures (which will for the first time impose restrictions at Stansted) with effect from 24th of that month. Put simply, the existing means of control involves a direct limitation upon the number of take-off and landing movements permitted at night. Shorn of certain detailed qualifications which do not matter for present purposes, the number of such movements presently allowed at Heathrow is 5,750 per year. The Secretary of State's new proposals, however, take a different form. At this stage I shall give only a crude description; it will be necessary to refine it later. A Quota count (QC) is to be assigned to each aircraft type. Each QC consists of a number of units from 0.5 to 16. In simple terms, the higher the QC, the noisier the aircraft. A given number of quota points will be assigned to each airport (12,000 in the case of Heathrow: 7000 for the summer season, 5000 for the winter). Aircraft movements which would produce any excess over the quota limit will be prohibited. The difference between the old system and the new system is therefore this: whereas at present, night flying restrictions are achieved by reference to an express specification of the number of the individual aircraft movements permitted, hereafter it will be done by reference to the permitted maximum number of quota points, and this means that within the ceiling defined by the maximum quotas, the aircraft operators will be free to choose how the quota is to be distributed between noisier and less noisy aircraft; they may operate a gr
[/align]*...

----------


## هيثم الفقى

[align=left] 
Year 1994 
*R v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ex p. The World Development Movement Ltd, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 10, 1994, [1995] 1 All ER 611,[1995] COD 211,[1994] EWHC Admin 1,[1995] 1 WLR 386*


CO1455/94 
BAILII Citation Number: [1994] EWHC QB 1 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
(DIVISIONAL COURT) 
Royal Courts of Justice Strand 
London WC2 

Date: Thursday, 10th November 1994 

B e f o r e: 
LORD JUSTICE ROSE 
and 
MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - REGINA 
v 
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS 
EX PARTE THE WORLD DEVELOPMENT MOVEMENT LIMITED 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (Computer aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of John Larking, Chancery House, Chancery Lane, London WC2 
Telephone No:  *  071 404 7464*   071 404 7464 
Fax No: 071 404 7443 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
MR N PLEMING QC and MR O DAVIES (Instructed by Bindman & Partners, London NW1 2SA) appeared on behalf of the Applicants. 
MR S RICHARDS (Instructed by the Treasury Solicitor, London SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the Respondent. 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
JUDGMENT 
Thursday, 10th November 1994. 

LORD JUSTICE ROSE: There is before the court an application by the World Development Movement Ltd for judicial review of two decisions of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in relation to aid to fund the Pergau Dam in Malaysia. The initial decision to grant aid was made on or shortly before 8th July 1991. The application refers to 15th July, which was the date of a press release in relation to the matter, but nothing turns on the precise date. 
In early 1994 there were proceedings in public before the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee which led the Applicants' solicitors to seek an assurance from the Secretary of State that no further funds would be furnished. On 29th April 1994 the Secretary of State refused to give such an assurance, and that is the second decision which is challenged. 
By the Notice of Motion the Applicants seek to have both decisions quashed and an Order preventing further payments from being made. But it may be that the Applicants will be content with a declaration that the July 1991 decision to make a grant was unlawful. In the course of the hearing before this court there have been four issues. First, whether the Applicants have standing to make the application; secondly, whether disclosure should be ordered of two minutes from Sir Tim Lankester, Permanent Secretary in the Overseas Development Administration, ("ODA") to Baroness Chalker, the Minister of Overseas Development, dated 5th and 7th February 1991; thirdly, whether the July 1991 decision was lawful; fourthly, what is the appropriate relief, if any, taking delay into account. As to the seco...
[/align]

----------


## هيثم الفقى

[align=left] 
Year 1995 
*R v Coventry Airport & Anor ex p. Phoenix Aviation & Ors, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 12, 1995, [1995] EWHC Admin 1*


CO-3303-94: CO-0201-95: CO-649-95 

BAILII Citation Number: [1995] EWHC QB 1 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2A 2LL 

Date: Wednesday 12 April 1995 

B E F O R E; 

LORD JUSTICE SIMON BROWN 
MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL 

- - - - - - - - - - 
B e t w e e n : 

R v COVENTRY AIRPORT & ANOR 
EX PARTE PHOENIX AVIATION & ORS 

R v DOVER HARBOUR BOARD 
EX PARTE PETER GILDER & SONS & ANOR 

R v ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS 
EX PARTE PLYMOUTH CITY COUNCIL 
- - - - - - - - - - 
Computer Aided Transcript of John Larking 
Chancery House, Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1QX 
Tel:  *  071 404 7464*   071 404 7464 Fax: 071 404 7443 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court 
- - - - - - - - - - 
SIR CHRISTOPHER PROUT QC and MISS K MCHUGH (Instructed by Beachcroft Stanleys, London, EC4A 1BN) appeared on behalf of Phoenix Aviation Ltd. 
MR S ISAACS QC and MR C LEWIS (Instructed by Sharpe Pritchard, agents for Coventry City Council) appeared on behalf of Coventry Airport & Anor. 
MR D PANNICK QC and MR D ANDERSON (Instructed by Mowll & Mowll, Dover CT16 1PN) appeared on behalf of Dover Harbour Board. 
MR D VAUGHAN QC and MR P MOSER and MR D LLOYD-JONES (Instructed by Cole & Cole, Oxford, OX2 052) appeared on behalf of Peter Gilder & Sons. 
MR R PLENDER QC and MR P DUFFY and MISS P WATSON (Instructed by Bindman & Partners, London, NW1 2SA) appeared on behalf of Compassion in World Farming 
MR C HADDON-CAVE (Instructed by Solicitor for the National Farmers' Union, London, WC2E 9LY) appeared on behalf of the NFU 
MR R FIELD QC and MR N GIFFIN (Instructed by R B Pearce, Legal Services, Associated British Ports) appeared for Associated British Ports. 
MR R GORDON QC and MR N GREEN (Instructed by The City Solicitor, Plymouth City Council) appeared on behalf of Plymouth City Council. - - - - - - - - - - 
JUDGMENT 
Lord Justice SIMON BROWN: 
I 
Introduction 
The export of live animals for slaughter is lawful. But many think it immoral. They object in particular to the shipment of live calves for rearing in veal crates, a practice banned in this country since 1990. The result is that for some months past the trade has attracted wide-spread concern and a great deal of highly publicised protest. Some of that protest is lawful; some alas is not. The precise point at which the right of public demonstration ends and the criminal offence of public nuisance begins may be difficult to detect. But not only is all violent conduct unlawful; so too is any activity which substantially inconveniences the public at large and disrupts the rights of others to go about their lawful business. 

It is the actual and threatened unlawful activity of animal rights protesters which underlies these three judicial review challenges. Two are brought by those wishing to export live animals, respectively through Coventry Airport and Dover Harbour; they seek to compel the port authorities to accept their trade. The third, by contrast, is brought by Plymouth City Council against its own harbour authority in an attempt to ban the trade. It is the fear of unlawful disruption which has prompted Coventry and Dover to refuse the trade (Coventry's ban being subject to the court first lifting the injunction requiring it at present to accept the trade); and which prompts Plymouth City Council to seek a similar ban. All three authorities, let it be clear at once, expressly now disavow animal welfare considerations as any part of their motivation (although earlier it was otherwise with both Coventry and Plymouth City Councils). 

The central questions raised by all three applications are these: 
1.Given that their trade is lawful, what if any rights are enjoyed by animal exporters to have it accepted by the public authorities administering the respective (air and sea) ports here under consideration? Or, putting it the other way round, what, if any, discretion have the authorities to refuse it? 

This question falls to be decided by reference to the respective statutory regimes under which each of these authorities operates. 

2.Assuming the authorities have a discretion to refuse trade which it would be within their physical capacity to handle, can they properly refuse it so as to avoid the disruptive consequences of threatened illegality? When, if ever, can a public authority properly bar lawful activity in response to unlawful protest? How absolute is the principle that the rule of law must prevail? 
3.If it be lawful under national law for these authorities to refuse this trade so as to avoid the disruptive consequences of accepting it, does such refusal nevertheless contravene European Community law? 

With that brief introduction let us turn at once to indicate something of the facts of these cases. These are before the court in the greatest detail. So as not to overburden this judgment, however, the barest summaries must suffice. 


II 
Coventry - the facts The first applicant is an air transport company, based in Coventry, engaged in the business of transporting...
[/align]

----------


## هيثم الفقى

[align=left] 
Year 1999 
*Ascot Wood Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment Transport & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 17, 1999, [2000] PLCR 265,[1999] EWHC 834 (Admin)*

SMITH BERNAL 
BAILII Citation Number: [1999] EWHC 834 (Admin) 
CO/3836/99 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
(CROWN OFFICE LIST) 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Date: Friday, 17th December 1999 

B e f o r e: 

MR NIGEL MACLEOD QC 

Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
ASCOT WOOD LIMITED 

-v- 

(1) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENVIRONMENT TRANSPORT 

AND THE REGIONS 

(2) RUNNYMEDE BOROUGH COUNCIL 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Computer-aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited 
180 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HD 
Telephone No: 0171-421 4040/0171-404 1400 
Fax No: 0171-831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
MR CAWS (instructed by Finers, London, W1N 6LS) appeared on behalf of the Applicant. 

MR MOULD (instructed by the Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the First Respondent. 

The Second Respondent was not present and was not represented. 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
J U D G M E N T 1. MR NIGEL MACLEOD QC: This is an application for an order under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash two decisions of the First Defendant's Inspector. The Inspector held a local enquiry into the Second Defendant's refusal to grant permission for (A) the erection of a single garage and store and (B) the removal of a condition attached to the planning permissi...
[/align]

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Metropolitan Borough of Wirral, R (on the application of), R. v, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 20, 1999, [2000] ELR 620,[1999] EWHC 831 (Admin),[2000] Ed CR 355

SMITH BERNAL 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
CO/4805/99 
BAILII Citation Number: [1999] EWHC 831 (Admin) 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
(CROWN OFFICE LIST) 


Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Date: Friday, 20th December 1999 


B e f o r e: 

MR JUSTICE LATHAM 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

REGINA 


-v- 

THE SCHOOLS ADJUDICATOR 

EX PARTE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF WIRRAL 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

(Computer-aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited 
180 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HD 
Telephone No: 0171-421 4040/0171-404 1400 
Fax No: 0171-831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

MR RICHARD CLAYTON (instructed by PG Manson, Borough Solicitors and Secretary, Metropolitan Borough of Wirral, Merseyside CH44 8ED) appeared on behalf of the Applicant. 

MR PAUL BROWN (instructed by the Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Respondent. 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
J U D G M E N T 
Monday, 20th December 1999 
JUDGMENT 1. MR JUSTICE LATHAM: This is an application by the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral, challenging a decision of the Schools Adjudicator in relation to the admissions procedures for secondary schools, which have been adopted by the applicants. This application raises for the first time consideration of the provisions and structure of the procedures laid down by the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, the relevant provisions of which c...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

[align=left] 
Year 2000
*Trevelyan v Secretary Of State For Environment, Transport & Regions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 24, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 282*


11 
Case No: CO/2206/99 


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 


Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Monday, 24th January 2000 


B e f o r e : 

MR JUSTICE LATHAM 
BETWEEN: 



(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:  *  0171 421 4040*   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr George Laurence QC (instructed by Brooke North Solicitors for the Applicant) 
Mr John Hobson (instructed by the Treasury Solicitors for the Respondent) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 

JUDGMENT 
Mr Justice Latham: 

1. Until recently, the Applicant was the Deputy Director of the Ramblers Association; and in this appeal he acts on his own behalf, and on behalf of the Association. The proceedings before me are an appeal brought under the provisions of Schedule 15 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (the 1981 Act) against an order made by the Respondent of the 1st April 1999 deleting a substantial proportion of a bridleway known as bridleway 8 from the definitive map of the area around Sawley in Lancashire. The bridleway forms part of a path designated by the County Council as Ribble Way. The Association is concerned not merely because of the consequent disruption of the path, but also because, it is said, important issues arise in relation to the powers given to relevant authorities under the 1981 Act to delete rights of way from definitive maps. 
2. The definitive map in question was prepared pursuant to the provisions of the National Parks and Access to Countryside Act 1949 (the 1949 Act). Section 27 required the relevant authority, in this case Lancashire County Council, to survey land over which a right of way was alleged to subsist and to prepare a map showing such a right of way whenever in its opinion such a right of way subsisted, or was reasonably alleged to have subsisted, at the relevant date. For the purposes of the present case, the relevant date was the 22nd September 1952. In order to carry out this ...
[/align]

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Bellefield Computer Services Ltd & Ors v E Turner & Sons Ltd, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 28, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 284


21 


Case No: QBENI 99/0891 1996 B No 2222 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
COURT OF APPEAL (QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION) 
ON APPEAL FROM THE HON. MR. JUSTICE BELL 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Friday, 28 January 2000 
B e f o r e : 
LORD JUSTICE SCHIEMANN 
LORD JUSTICE TUCKEY 
and 
MR. JUSTICE WALL 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
-------------------- 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
JEREMY STUART-SMITH Q.C. & DORE GREEN (instructed by Messrs Berrymans Lace Mawer for the Appellants) 
TIMOTHY STOW Q.C. & FREYA NEWBERY (instructed by Messrs Kennedys for the Respondents) 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 
Friday, 28 January 2000 

Judgment 

LORD JUSTICE SCHIEMANN: 
This appeal by the fourth claimant from Bell, J. is in respect of his ruling on preliminary issues of law on assumed facts set out in the papers. All the other claimants had already abandoned their claims before the hearing in front of Bell, J.. The significant assumed facts are these. Between 1981 and 1983 the Defendant Building Contractors ("the builders"), pursuant to a contract with one of the other claimants ("the original owners") constructed a steel portal frame building which was intended to be used as a dairy including a processing and bottling factory, offices, laboratories and a storage area. In 1989 the original owners of the dairy sold it to the appellants ("the subsequent owners"). In 1995 a fire broke out in the storage area. It spread from the storage area to the rest of the dairy and caused much damage. The Builders, had they followed good building practice and the requirements of the Building Regulations, would have constructed, between the storage area and the rest of the building, a compartment wall which would have prevented the spread of the fire from the storage area to the rest of the building. Although a wall was constructed in the right place, along what one of the plans to which the builders were supposed to be working described as Gridline 2, the fire passed over the top of the wall. This it would not have done had the wall been constructed in accordance with good building practice. 
The subsequent owners sued the builders in negligence alleging that they had suffered damage under 6 heads (A) Repairs and cleaning to buildings (other than the area in which the fire started); provision of temporary car-park and access ; professional fees...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Buckland & Ors v Secretary Of State For Environment Transport & Regions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 11, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 279




Case No CO/1682/1998 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
(Crown Office) 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London 
WC2A 2LL 


Tuesday, 11 January 2000 

Before: 

MR JUSTICE KAY 

NORMAN CHARLES BUCKLAND 
And 
patricia joan buckland 
AND 
DAVID HUBERT CAPEL 

-V- 

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT 
TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS 


(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 


Mr George Laurence QC (instructed by Thrings & Long) appeared on behalf of the Applicants. 
Mr John Hobson (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Respondent 




Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 

Tuesday, 11 January 2000 
JUDGMENT 

Mr Justice Kay: 

This is an application brought by the applicants under paragraph 12 of Schedule 15 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 ("the 1981 Act") against the decision of the Secretary of State acting by his Inspector dated 8 January 1998 by which he confirmed the County Council of Avon Definitive Map and Statement Modification Order No 1. 1994 with modifications. 

Factual background to the application 

The route in question runs between the villages of Winscombe and Barton and is known for a part of the route as Barton Drove. Prior to the modification with which the case is concerned it has always been shown on the definitive map as two footpaths. 
The Modification Order made pursuant to section 53 of the 1981 Act purports to show those paths as upgraded to bridleways. Objections were raised to the order and as a result an inquiry under paragraph 7 of Schedule 15 to the 1981 Act was held. Following that inquiry, the Inspector concluded that the documentary evidence supported vehicular highway rights and in consequence, by paragraph 70 of his first decision letter dated 18 April 1997 indicated that the Secretary of State ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Cantrell (t/a Foxear Lodge Nursing Home) v Customs & Excise, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 28, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 283




Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2A 2LL 

Friday, 28th January 2000 

B e f o r e 

MR JUSTICE LIGHTMAN 

BETWEEN: 

BRIAN CANTRELL AND EILEEN CANTRELL 
trading as FOXEARTH LODGE NURSING HOME 
Appellants 

and 

THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE 
Respondents 

(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
_________ 

Mr Jonathan Peacock (Instructed by Messrs Mills & Reeve Francis House, 112 Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 1PH) appeared on behalf of the Appellant. 
Mr Rupert Baldry (Instructed by the Solicitor of Customs and Excise, New King's Beam House, 22 Upper Ground, London SE1 9PJ) appeared on behalf of the Respondents. 
---_______ 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 


Friday, 28 January 2000 
JUDGMENT 
MR JUSTICE LIGHTMAN: 

INTRODUCTION 1. This is an appeal under Section 11 of the Tribunal and Inquiries Act 1...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*HM Attorney General v Ebert, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 31, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 286*

34 

Case no: CO/4506/98 

IN THE high court of justice 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
(DIVISIONAL COURT) 

Royal Courts of justice 
Strand, London, wc2a 2ll 

Friday, 7th July, 2000 

Before: 

LORD JUSTICE LAWS 

MR JUSTICE SILBER 

------------------- 

HM ATTORNEY GENERAL 

-v- 

EBERT 
____________________ 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:  *  020 7421 4040*   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
____________________ 

MR JAY QC and MS AYLING (instructed by the Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Applicant 

THE RESPONDENT APPEARED IN PERSON 
____________________ 

J U D G M E N T 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 

LAWS LJ: 

Introduction 
1 HM Attorney General applies to this court for a civil proceedings order to be made against the respondent Gedaljhu Ebert pursuant to s.42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, whose provisions material to the issues in this case are as follows: 
"(1) If, on an application made by the Attorney General under this section, the High Court is satisfied that any person has habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground - 
(a) instituted vexatious civil proceedings, whether in the High Court or any inferior court, and whether against the same person or against different persons; or 
(b) made vexatious applications in any civil proceedings, whether in the High Court or any inferior court, and whether instituted by him or another... 
the court may, after hearing that person or giving him an opportunity to be heard, make a civil proceedings order... 
(1A) In this section - 
`civil proceedings order' means an order that - 
(a) no civil proceedings shall without the leave of the High Court be instituted in any court by the person against whom the order is made; 
(b) any civil proceedings instituted by him in any court before the making of the order shall not be continued by him without the leave of the High Court; and 
(c) no application (other than one for leave under this section) shall be made by him, in any civil proceedings instituted in any court by any person, without the leave of the High Court... 
(2) An order under subsection (1) may provide that it is to cease to have effect at the end of a specified period, but shall otherwise remain in force indefinitely. 
(3) Leave for the institution or continuance of, or for the making of an application in, any civil proceedings by a person who is the subject of an order for the time being in force under subsection (1) shall not be given unless the High Court is satisfied that the proceedings or application are not an abuse of the process of the court in question and that there are reasonable grounds for the proceedings or application. 
... 
(4) No appeal shall lie from a decision of the High Court refusing leave required by this section..." 

Before us the Attorney was represented by Mr Robert Jay QC. Mr Ebert appeared on his own behalf. 

Background 
2 The background to the case, as was said by Mr Glendinning of the Treasury Solicitor's Department who swore an affidavit in support of the Attorney's application, "is undeniably of some considerable complexity". It has had to be described in many judgments of the courts already given; as for example in the recent judgment of Simon Brown LJ in this court, which for reasons I shall explain in due course adjourned the application on 31 January 2000; and in the judgment of Laddie J sitting with Neuberger J on 6 March 2000. It is however our duty, now that the application falls to be finally determined, to set out the history again. In the account which follows I have drawn, as did Simon Brown LJ, on Mr Glendinning's succinct narrative. 
3 In the late 1980s Mr Ebert embarked upon an enterprise in property development along with a Mr Morris Wolff. It was done through a company of which the two of them were in substance the owners: Europride Ltd. Mr Ebert was the day-to-day manager of the property portfolio. Mr Wolff's task was to arrange the finance. With the benefit of considerable facilities obtained through the offices of a number of banks (including Bank Leumi and Midland Bank plc), Europride acquired a substantial portfolio, amounting to something like 220 properties. The banks, of course, took security for what they advanced, and did so in a number of forms. Midland Bank had joint and several personal guarantees from Mr Eb...

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Chaudhry, R (on the application of) v Special Adjudicator & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 26, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 62









1 



Neutral Citation Number: [2001] EWHC Admin 62 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CO 2888/00 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
(ADMINISTRATIVE COURT) 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Friday 26th January 2000 
B e f o r e: 
MR JUSTICE OUSELEY 
- - - - - - - 
ON THE APPLICATION OF CHAUDHRY 
-v- 
SPECIAL ADJUDICATOR 
and 
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT 
- - - - - - 
(Computer-aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited 
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG 
Telephone No: 020 7421 4063/020 7404 1400 
Fax No: 0171-831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 

- - - - - - 

MISS P CHANDRAN (instructed by Chhokar & Co, WC2A 2LL) appeared on behalf of the Claimant. 
MR S KOVATS (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor London SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the Defendant. 
- - - - - - 

J U D G M E N T 
(As approved) 
Crown Copyright 

JUDGMENT 
MR JUSTICE OUSELEY: 
Introduction: 
1. Mr Chaudhry, the claimant, an Indian national, challenges by way of judicial review a decision given by the Special Adjudicator on 5th July 2000. By that decision she dismissed the claimant's appeal from the refusal of his asylum claim by the Secretary of State for the Home Department given on 11th February 2000. The Secretary of State also certified the claim under paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 2 to the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, as amended, because India is designated as a country in which, in general, there is no serious risk of persecution. He also refused the claimant leave to enter the United Kingdom. 
2. The claimant sought asyl...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Mark Wilkinson Furniture Ltd v Construction Industry Training Board, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 12, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 280

12 




CO/1318/00 


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ON APPEAL FROM THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL 

B e f o r e 

THE HON MR JUSTICE NEWMAN 


BETWEEN 

MARK WILKINSON FURNITURE LIMITED 
Appellant 

and 


CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY TRAINING BOARD 
Respondent 

------------------------------------------ 


D W Mayall instructed by Rosenblatt, Solicitors for the Appellant 

Mark Shaw instructed by CMS Cameron McKenna, Solicitors for the Respondent 

----------------------------------------- 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
----------------------------------------- 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 
Crown Copyright © 



Mr Justice Newman 1. The appellant company, Mark Wilkinson Furniture Limited, are very well known as designers, manufacturers and installers of fitted units for kitchens and bathrooms. The company regards its activities as being in the area of the design and manufacture of furniture. Its business activity is predominantly, but not exclusively, the manufacture of fitted units for bathrooms and kitchens and the company installs the fitted units. There is no doubt that the company is regarded as a furniture maker. It has the Guild Mark of the Worshipful Company of Furniture Makers of the City of London. It belongs to the British Furniture Manufacturing Association. Its brochure puts emphasis on the originality of its design of furniture. Notwithstanding such private and public perceptions of its activities, the respondent Board concluded that the activities of the company were such as made it liable for assessment to levy under the Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order l999, Statutory instrument (S.I) No 159. In short, the Board concluded that the company's activities fell within the scope of the construction industry as defined in the relevant sub...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Hassani-Kazhadeh, R (on the application of) v Housing Benefit Review Board Of The London Borough Of Camden, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 31, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 378





Case No: CO/2369/99 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Date: 26th July 2000 

B e f o r e : 


MRS JUSTICE SMITH 



- - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - 

Mr N McInnes appeared on behalf of the Applicant 
Miss J Richards appeared on behalf of the Respondent 
- - - - - - - - - - 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 










Mrs Justice Smith: 
1. This is an application for the judicial review of two decisions of the Housing Benefit Review Board of the Camden Borough Council (the Review Board) taken on 27th April 1998 and 21st October 1998 under the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987. The applicant is an elderly man who lived in and received Housing Benefit for his Council flat in Camden. Following his admission to hospital in September 1996 and his subsequent convalescence in 1997 at the home of his former wife, Camden decided that he was no longer entitled to receive housing benefit for his flat. His family has fought to retain it on his behalf. The fight has gone many rounds. Before setti...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Singh, R (on the application of) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 26, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 376


10 


Case No: CO/488/2000 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
QUEEN'S BECH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE 


Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Date: 26th July 2000 
B e f o r e : 


MRS JUSTICE SMITH 



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


Immigration Appeal Tribunal 
ex parte 
Parvitter Singh 



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Miss Chapman Appeared on behalf of the Applicant 
Mr A Underwood Appeared on behalf of the Respondent 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 



Mrs Justice Smith: 

In this asylum case, the applicant Paviter Singh, who is an Indian national, seeks judicial review of the decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (IAT) on 13th November 1999 when it refused leave to appeal against a decision of a Special Adjudicator dated 7th October 1999. The Special Adjudicator found that the applicant who is a Punjabi Sikh had a well-founded fear of persecution in the Punjab. However, he considered that it would not be unreasonable or unduly harsh for him to relocate elsewhere in India and rejected the his appeal from the Secretary of State's decision to refuse him refugee status. 

Article 33(1) of the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (the Convention) provides: No contracting state shall expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territorie...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Lashley, R (on the application of) v Broad District Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 16, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 358


1 

Case no: co/5011/1999 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
CROWM OFFICE 
Royal Courts of justice 
Strand, London, wc2a 2ll 

Friday 16 June 2000 
Before: 

his hon MR JUSTICE Munby 


------------------- 

THE QUEEN 
V 
BROAD DISTRICT COUNCIL 
EX PARTE BARBARA JUNE LASHLEY 
____________________ 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
____________________ 
mr GAVIN MILLAR q.c. (INSTRUCTED BY MESSRS sTEEL & sHAMASH) Appeared on behalf of the applicant 
Mr christopher baker (Instructed by messrs eversheds) Appeared on behalf of the Respondent 
____________________ 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 

MR JUSTICE MUNBY Friday 16th June 2000 


In this application, Mr Gavin Millar QC moves on behalf of the applicant, Barbara June Lashley, for judicial review of a decision of the Standards Committee ("the Committee") of Broadland District Council ("the Council") on 6 December 1999 that her conduct on or about May 1999 (sic) fell short of the highest standards expected of Councillors. The relief sought is 

"1 Declarations that 

(1) as at 6 December 1999 the Committee was not discharging a statutory function of the Council within the meaning of section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 ("the 1972 Act") and was not therefore a lawfully constituted committee of the Council and/or 

(2) there was procedural impropriety in the making of the decision 

in consequence of which the decision was null and void. 

2 Certiorari to quash the decision." 

The application is resisted by Mr Christopher Baker of counsel appearing on behalf of the Council. 

I am grateful to Mr Millar and Mr Baker for their careful and helpful arguments in a case which raises an interesting and, as it seems to me, important point on which there is surprisingly little direct authority. 

THE FACTS 

The applicant has been an elected member of the Council since 1995. She is and was at all material times the leader of the minority Labour group on the Council. John Bryant ("Mr Bryant") was at all material times the Chief Executive of the Council and in this capacity acted as the Head of the Paid Service and Monitoring Officer. Two other officers played an important part in events: Trevor Johnson ("Mr Johnson"), the Corporate Services Manager, and Stephen Fennell ("Mr Fennell"), the Personnel and Central Services Manager. I should also mention Martin Thrower ("Mr Thrower"), who as I understand it worked in Mr Johnson's department, and Jennifer Harman ("Miss Harman"), who was Mr Bryant's personal assistant 

In February 1999 the Council set up the Committee as a full standing committee of the Council, though at this stage the Committee was only empowered to make "recommendations" to the Council following investigations into allegations of misconduct by Councillors. 

On 6 May 1999, which was a Thursday, elections to the Council took place. The result was such that if the Conservative group was to retain control of the Council following the elections, and so avoid a hung council, a former member of that group, Councillor Procter, who had been returned as a member in the elections had to be restored to membership of the group. During the Friday, 7 May, there was doubt about whether this would happen. According to the applicant, Mr Bryant instructed Mr Johnson to delay the calculation and notification of the statutory committee allocations for the Council, in order to give the Conservative group more time to resolve the question of Councillor Procter's membership of the group. 
At the close of business on the Friday Mr Johnson telephoned the applicant to inform her that the committee allocations were not yet available. The applicant took the view that she needed the allocations so as to be able to report to a meeting of her newly elected Labour group that evening and she accordingly pressed Mr Johnson for an ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Philcox, R (on the application of) v Epping Forest District Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 13, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 325

- 1 - 



Case No: CO 3331/98 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Thursday 13th April 2000 
B e f o r e : 
THE HON MR JUSTICE HOOPER 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street London EC4A 2HD
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
B, R (on the application of) v Collins & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 10, 2000, [2000] EWHC 639 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL 
Case No: CO/68/2000 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 
IN CHAMBERS 
Queen Elizabeth II 
Law Courts 
Liverpool 

Date: 10 March 2000 

B e f o r e : 

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAURICE KAY 

- - - - - - - - - - - - 

- - - - - - - - - - - - 
- - - - - - - - - - - - 
Mr Nigel Pleming QC and Ms Eleanor Grey (instructed by Reid Minty, London ) appeared for the Respondent 
Mr Benet Hytner QC, Ms Phillippa Kaufmann and Mr Robin Makin Solicitor Advocate (instructed by E. Rex Makin and Company, Liverpool) 
appeared for the Applicant 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

JUDGMENTMr Justice Maurice Kay: 
1. The Applicant is 62 years old. On 6 May 1966 at Chester Assizes he was convicted of three murders and sentenced to three concurrent terms of life imprisonment. His offences, and those of his co-defendant, M.H., are often referred to as ``the Moors Murders''. The Secretary of State has fixed a full life tariff and the Applicant (unlike M.H.) accepts that he will never be released. For many years he was detained in high security prisons but on 29 November 1985 he was transferred to Park Lane Hospital by a Transfer Direction which referred to his suffering from mental illness within the meaning of the Mental Health Act and stated that the mental disorder was of a nature or degree which made it appropriate for him to be detained in a hospital for medical treatment. Park Lane Hospital, together with the nearby Moss Side Hospital, was later reorganised to form Ashworth Hospital. From his admission in November 1985 until June 1995 he was detained in Newman Ward. On 16 June 1995 he was moved to Jade Ward within the former Moss Side site. The move was carried out with police assistance because it involved movement outside the perimeter wall and along a short stretch of public highway. The move was uneventful. Throughout this period the authorities were mindful of the position of the Applicant and they made arrangements which, in his own interests, limited his freedom within the Hospital. To compensate for or counterbalance this they afforded him additional facilities, in particular a personal computer and special visiting arrangements. 
2. For a number of reasons unrelated to the Applicant, Ashworth Hospital attracted public criticism and on 7 February 1997 an Inquiry was set up under the chairmanship of His Honour Peter Fallon QC. The ensuing Report recommended that ``Ashworth Hospital should close in its entirety at the earliest opportunity''. However, the Secretary of State for Health did not accept this recommendation. Without descending into unnecessary detail, the outcome was a more restrictive regime, the consequences of which included the withdrawal of the Applicant's computer and an increase in the security arrangements for visitors. In addition, the Applicant began to fear a return to the prison system. 
3. On 18 June 1999, a Mental Health Review Tribunal considered the Applicant's position as part of a routine review and not at the request of the Applicant. It concluded that: 
``the patient remains mentally ill and subject to a psychopathic disorder. His persistent verbal abuse of staff is largely attributable to such conditions. The patient is appropriately hospitalised for his own health and the safety of himself and others.'' 
4. At the same time the Tribunal expressed disappointment about the withdrawal of his computer and added that in its view: ``no step ought to be taken to reduce Mr. B.'s quality of life unless such can be adequately justified in his particular case. The patient's unique position in Ashworth would seemingly justify an...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Rogers & Anor v Rhys Evans (A Firm) & Ors, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 30, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 312

1 

Case No: QBENI 99/0743 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
COURT OF APPEAL 
FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
BRISTOL DISTRICT REGISTRY FROM THE 
ORDER BY H.H.JUDGE DYER 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, LONDON, WC2A 2LL 

Thursday 30 March 2000 

Before: 

LORD JUSTICE EVANS 

AND 

MR JUSTICE PARKER 
----------------------------- 

Kenneth Edward Rogers & Anr 
APPELLANTS 
And 

Rhys Evans (a firm) & Ors 
RESPONDENTS 
----------------------------- 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
----------------------------- 
Miss Barbara HEWSON (Instructed by Burges Salmon, Bristol for the Appellants) 
Mr Christopher GIBSON QC & Mr Nigel GERALD (Instructed By Wansbroughs Willey Hargrave, Birmingham for the Respondents) 
----------------------------- 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 


ROGERS v. IDRIS DAVIES HOLDINGS LTD & Ors. 


Mr Justice Jonathan Parker: 
This is an appeal by the first claimant in the action, Mr Kenneth Rogers, against an Order made by His Honour Judge Dyer (sitting as a High Court Judge) on 15 April 1999, striking out the action as an abuse of process. The second claimant in the action is a company called Great Norwood Developments Ltd (I will refer to it hereafter as "GND"). The Order was made on the application of the sixth defendant in the action, Messrs Rhys Evans (a former firm of solicitors). The Judge refused Mr Rogers permission to appeal, but permission was subsequently granted on paper by Sir Anthony McCowan. Notice of appeal was subsequently issued on behalf of Mr Rogers, followed by a cross-notice on behalf of the sixth defendant seeking to affirm the judgment on the alternative basis that the action should be dismissed for want of prosecution on the ground that there has been inordinate and inexcusable delay, giving rise to serious p...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Xuereb, R (on the application of) v Immigration Officer, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 26, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 352

Case no: co/2355/1999 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
CROWM OFFICE 

Royal Courts of justice 
Strand, London, wc2a 2ll 

Friday 26 May 2000 
Before: 

his hon MR JUSTICE Turner 

------------------- 



THE QUEEN 
-v- 
AN IMMIGRATION OFFICER 

Ex parte JOHN XUEREB 


____________________ 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
____________________ 
Mr Steven kovats (instructed by Treasury Solicitors for the 1st Respondent) 
Miss stephanie harrison (instructed by Gill & Co for the Applicant) 
____________________ 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 
Crown Copyright © 






Mr Justice TURNER : 
Introduction 
1. This is an application for judicial review of the decision of an immigration officer dated 28 May 1999, by which he refused to grant the applicant exceptional leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom and enforced his removal to Malta. 

History 
2. On arrival in the United Kingdom from Malta on 12 December 1997, the applicant had applied for asylum, he provided various disconnected reasons for his application. His asylum application was refused on 29 January 1998. On 12 February, the immigration officer refused leave for the applicant to enter the United Kingdom. He was detained. Sometime after his detention in HMP Rochester, the applicant was seen by a psychiatrist and diagnosed as suffering from acutely psychotic symptoms with marked paranoid delusions. 

3. On the same day as he decided to refuse to grant leave to enter, the Secretary of State for the Home Department certified the asylum application under the provisions of paragraph 5(4)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. The applicant appealed against the decision refusing his asylum application. On 19 February 1998, the applicant was transferred to a psychiatric hospital under the provisions of sections 48 and 49 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (the Act of 1983). On investigation of the Maltese authorities, it transpired that the applicant had been admitted to a psychiatric hospital in Malta in 1994, "but had subsequently lapsed psychiatric follow up". 
4. On 18 September 1998, the applicant's asylum appeal was dismissed. The special adjudicator found that the removal of the applicant to Malta, with the accompanying risk that his mental health would deteriorate in consequence, would amount to inhuman or degrading treatment within Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and recommended that...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
McNicholas Construction Co Ltd v Customs & Excise, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 16, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 357

50 


Case No: CO/974/1999 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Date: 16 June 2000 at 0930am 
B e f o r e : 
THE HON MR JUSTICE DYSON 

_______________________ 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
_______________________ 
Charles Purle QC; Michael Sherry and Eamon McNicholas (instructed by Messrs Titmuss Sainer Dechert for the Appellants) 
Kenneth Parker QC and Aidan Robertson (instructed by the Solicitor for HM Commissioners' of Customs and Excise for the Respondents) 
_______________________ 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 








Mr Justice Dyson: 

Introduction 

1. McNicholas Construction Company Limited ("MC") appeals against the decision of the VAT and Duties Tribunal (Chairman Stephen Oliver QC) given on 12 January 1999 in relation to appeals against 24 assessments to VAT on MC for the three month periods from June 1990 to March 1996 inclusive. The assessments were all made on 21 March 1997. The aggregate amount of the assessed tax was £1,245,545 plus interest. The Tribunal allowed some of the assessments, with the result that the total amount of the assessed tax was reduced. It is MC's case that the Tribunal should have allowed the appeals in full, and discharged all the assessments of which complaint was made. 

2. MC operates as a civil and public works contractor. One of its main activities is that of digging trenches for the laying of cable ducts. Part of its labour force comes from its own employed staff. But self-employed labourers, who usually work in gangs, form the much greater part of the workforce. As a result of investigations started in about 1993, the Commissioners came to the conclusion that companies and individuals purporting to be sub-contractors, whom they suspected to be bogus, were issuing VAT invoices to MC for services of providing labour that they had not provided. MC was claiming VAT relief as input tax of the amounts of VAT paid to these sub-contractors pursuant to the invoices. If in truth the sub-contractors were not making supplies to MC, there could be no obligation to pay them VAT, and no right in MC to claim VAT relief in respect of amounts purportedly paid as VAT. 

3. Each of the 24 assessments was raised on the basis that in the opinion of the Commissioners MC had wrongly claimed input relief in respect of the VAT paid to 12 sub-contractors in all. The assessments were raised to recover the tax wrongly relieved in response to the input tax claims. Each assessment for each period was for an amount that was the aggregate of the input tax charged on the invoices issued in the names of the 12 sub-contractors. 

4. The assessments for the periods 6/90 to 12/93 required the Commissioners to prove fraud against MC, since they were extended time-limit assessments made outside the normal 3 year time-limit for assessment to VAT. It was the Commissioners' case that MC was party to 3 frauds directed at the Commissioners. The first was supported by an organisation run by a Mr Christopher Lee, and was based on Hi-Tech House, Wembley. In the course of this fraud, VAT invoices were issued to MC in the names of 9 alleged sub-contractors. The second centred on the activities of Mr McHugh (who was employed as a project manager by MC): this related to the production of VAT invoices to MC in the names of 2 alleged sub-contractors. The third alleged fraud concerned the activities of a Mr Cassidy. Cassidy invoiced MC for consultancy services in finding labour purportedly supplied by the 11 alleged sub-contractors who were the subject of the first and second frauds. 
5. The Commissioners' case before the Tribunal was that the steps in the fraud were as follows (see paragraphs 32-38 of the Decision). They started typically with the registration for VAT of individuals, whose businesses were ostensibly those of subcontractors. In some cases, the registration of an already VAT registered individual was used. In all cases, the person running the fraud, for example Mr Lee, operated and maintained a bank account in the name of the alleged subcontractor. MC paid into the bank account the amount shown as payable to that subcontractor in the relevant Certificate of Payment to Subcontractor for the services allegedly supplied by the subcontractor in the previous week. Payments were exclusive of VAT. The person running the fraud would arrange to withdraw the amounts required to pay the gangs whose services had allegedly been supplied the previous week. The amounts required to pay the gangs (and to make other disbursements) were a known percentage, usually 86%, of the amount paid into the bank account. The weekly withdrawals were transmitted to the sites, and used to pay the gangs and labourers. Periodically, VAT invoices w...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd, R (on the application of) v Special Commissioner, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 08, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 415



Case no: CO/4481/2000 

IN THE high court of justice 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 

Royal Courts of justice 
Strand, London, wc2a 2ll 

Wednesday 8 November 2000 

Before: 

LORD JUSTICE BUXTON 
And 
MR JUSTICE PENRY DAVEY 
------------------- 

The Queen 
-v- 
A SPECIAL COMMISSIONER 
EX PARTE MORGAN GRENFELL & CO LTD 
____________________ 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
____________________ 

Michael Beloff QC and Mr Giles Goodfellow (instructed by Messers Slaughter and May) for the applicants 

Mr Timothy Brennan and Miss Ingrid Simler (instructed by the Solicitor to the Inland Revenue) for the Respondents 

____________________ 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 

LORD JUSTICE BUXTON: 

This is the judgment of the Court. 
Background 
These proceedings arise in the context of a tax-related scheme called Sale With Tax Enhanced Leasing Arbitrage [STELA] devised and operated by Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd [MG], the well-known merchant bank. The scheme was commended to clients by MG as enabling them to secure extremely low cost term funding through a tax arbitrage based on property. 
It will be necessary to describe STELA in somewhat more detail at a later stage of this judgment. Its essence, however, was that (to quote MG's documentation promoting the scheme) the client (in the example at which these proceedings are directed, Tesco plc) 
grants a long leasehold interest in property that it already owns to [MG] and then leases it back under a sub-lease in a highly tax efficient manner........The lump sum obtained from the grant of the property interest is amortised through rental payments made by Tesco under the sub-lease. Tesco receives the sale proceeds tax free (or sheltered from tax) and obtains a tax deduction for the rental payments which repay both the principal and the interest. That is the tax advantage obtained by Tesco. The substantial premium paid by MG for the granting of the leasehold interest, seen by Tesco as the proceeds of the sale of the lease, would not be expec...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*Duncan & Anor, R (on the application of) v Legal Aid Board & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, February 16, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 294*




Case No: CO/4807/99 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
DIVISIONAL COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Wednesday, 16th February 2000 

B e f o r e : 

LORD JUSTICE ROCH 
LORD JUSTICE BROOKE 
and 
MR JUSTICE GAGE 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:  *  0171 421 4040*   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 


Mr Richard Gordon QC, Jenni Richards & Paul Bowen (instructed by Mackintosh Duncan for the Applicants) 
Mr Nigel Pleming QC & Beverley Lang (instructed by the Legal Aid Board for the First Respondents) 
Jonathan Crow (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor for the Second Respondent) 



Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 
Index 

Part Title Para Nos 
1 An overview of the issues in the case 3 - 17 
2 The history of legal aid before the 1988 Act 18 - 31 
3 The 1988 Act and its aftermath 32 - 51 
4 The need for reform: the advantages and challenges of controlled contracts 52 - 77 
5 Certificated legal aid 77 - 86 
6 The allocation of funds and the bidding system 87 - 111 
7 The firm of Mackintosh Duncan and its contract award 112 - 130 
8 The Burgundy book 131 - 135 
9 Mackintosh Duncan's concerns about the new scheme 136 - 175 
10 Prescribed panels 176 - 183 
11 The new controls over travelling expenses 184 - 205 
12 Practical problems facing firms under the new scheme 206 - 219 
13 The meeting on 20th December and the amended contract offer 220 - 250 
14 The Board's discretions and the need for transparency 251 - 302 
15 The new generic franchise categories, their purpose and their scope 303 - 324 
16 Particular franchise categories: (i) mental health 325 - 373 
17 Particular franchise categories: (ii) community care 374 - 394 
18 Particular franchise categories: (iii) employment 395 - 398 
19 Particular franchise categories: (iv) immigration 399 - 413 
20 The Law Society and the Legal Aid Practitioners' Group 414 - 430 
21 The complaints by other practitioners 431 - 443 
22 The applicants' submissions: (i) The common law right of access to the courts 444 - 468 
23 The applicants' submissions: (ii) The right conferred by section 32(1) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 469 - 477 
24 The applicants' submissions: (iii) the treatment of the not for profit sector 478 - 485 
25 The applicants' submissions: (iv) Wednesbury irrationality 486 - 547 
26 The court's conclusions 548 - 584 

Lord Justice Brooke: 
This is the judgment of the court. 
There is before the court an application by Ian Duncan and Nicola Mackintosh for permission to apply for judicial review. They are the partners in a small firm of solicitors who have been practising under the name of Mackintosh Duncan since 1st July 1999 from office premises in Borough High Street, Southwark. The respondents to this application are the Legal Aid Board ("the Board") and the Lord Chancellor. At one level the applicants are challenging the legal validity of the whole new scheme for legal advice and assistance and free representation at mental health review tribunals which was introduced by the Board under powers given to it by the Lord Chancellor and with the authority of both Houses of Parliament with effect from 1st January 2000. At this level the applicants also challenge the legal validity of two directions made during December 1999 by the Lord Chancellor under Section 4(4) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 ("the 1988 Act") and one statutory instrument made by him in the same month, following positive resolutions by each House of Parliament, under Section 8(3) of the Act. At a lower level the applicants challenge the legal validity of the new scheme because they castigate as irrational certain aspects of the way in which the Board has planned and implemented it, particularly in relation to the way in which it affects their firm and their clients or potential clients. Their application is supported by the Law Society. Although the Society has not formally intervened, there are in evidence two statements by its President, Mr Robert Sayer, nearly 40 letters and two affidavits from firms of solicitors or other interested agencies who are worried about the way the scheme will affect their staff and their service to their clients, and a large number of documents concerned with the scheme and the events that led up to its introduction. On 13th December 1999 Latham J refused the applicants interim relief. He directed that their application for permission be listed for hearing before a Divisional Court on 12th January 2000, with the substantive hearing to follow if permission was granted. On 12th January we granted the Board and the Lord Chancellor a short adjournment, for reasons we ...

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Gholam-Shehni, R (on the application of) v IAT, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 12, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 400

5 

Case No CO/1317/99 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
DIVISIONAL & ADMINISTRATIVE COURT LIST. 


Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Date 12 Oct 2000 

Before: 

MR. JUSTICE GOLDRING 

R E G I N A 

-v- 

IAT 
Respondent 

ex parte 

GHOLAM-SHEHNI 
Applicant 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

MS. F. KRAUSE (Instructed by Messrs. Woolcombe Beer Watts) appeared on behalf of the Applicant. 

MR. J. SWIFT (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Respondent. 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Judgment 

As Approved by the Court 
Crown Copyright 



The application 
1. The applicant is 29. He was born in Iran. He entered the United Kingdom on 3 August 1994. He claimed asylum on 5 August 1994. The Secretary of State refused his claim in a letter dated 5 March 1997. His appeal to the Special Adjudicator was dismissed by a determination on 13 December 1998. Leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal was refused on 19 February 1999. The applicant seeks judicial review of that refusal. He does so by permission of the Court of Appeal (following a hearing at which the Respondents were not represented), applications for permission having previously been refused both on paper and at an oral hearing. 

The Secretary of State's refusal 
2. The basis of the application was set out in a long statement dated 20 September 1994. Its contents were summarised in the Secretary of State's refusal letter of 5 March 1997 (page 69). In paragraph 2, the Secretary of State stated that "The basis of your claim is that you suffered continuous harassment in Iran because of your own and your family's political beliefs. You claimed that yo...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Youngson, R (on the application of) v Birmingham City Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 11, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 430






IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATION COURT 
Case No:CO/4235/1999 


Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Date: 11 December 2000 

B e f o r e : 

MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


(A child by Sarah Youngson his Litigation friend) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr De Mello and Miss Kelly (instructed by Gamble Morris Hills Kingston, Birmingham, B30 3AS) for the Claimant 
Mr C SheldonError! Bookmark not defined. (instructed by Birmingham City Council Legal Services, Birmingham, B2 5EN) for the Defendant 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 
Crown Copyright © 



MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: 1. Jacob Youngson was born on 24 October 1987 and is therefore now aged 13. He has ambitions to be a professional ballet dancer. He has some talent and his parents applied to the Local Education Authority of the Birmingham City Council (the Defendant) for a grant to enable him to attend a full time vocational dance course. On 10 Feb...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
ADT Auctions Ltd v Secretary Of State For Environment, Transport & Regions & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 16, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 305


- 37 - 




Case No: CO/4040/99 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 


Thursday 16 March 2000 

B e f o r e : 

THE HON MR JUSTICE JOWITT 




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
David Elvin (instructed by Gouldens for the Claimant) 
Timothy Corner (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor for the 1st Defendant) 
Christopher Katkowski QC (instructed by Solicitor to Hart District Council for the 2nd Defendant) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 







Mr Justice Jowitt: 
1. This is a statutory appeal pursuant to section 288(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the decision of the first defendant, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, dismissing the claimant's appeal against a refusal by the second defendant, Hart District Council as Local Planning Authority, of an outline application for planning permission to develop for housing 5.68 hectares of low grade agricultural land lying south west to the edge of Yately in Hampshire. The proposal was to build 42 houses. There was an appeal against this refusal to the Secretary of State. He appointed an Inspector, Mr D P Machin (the first Inspector), to hold an inquiry and report to him so that he might decide the appeal. The inquiry was held over a period of 8 days in June and July 1996. 

2. The appeal site was close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and there was at the time of the planning application and appeal a live proposal to designate the SSSI also as a Special Protection Area for Wild Birds (SPA) by reason of the presence on the site of breeding woodlarks, nightjars and Dartford warblers. I shall refer to the site as a conservation site. It is a site to which the public have access. 

3. An important issue at the appeal hearing was whether and to what extent the proposed development would adversely affect environmentally the conservation site. It is this aspect of the planning appeal which is relevant in the appeal before me. Appearing before the first Inspector were the claimant, the second defendant, Hampshire County Council, English Nature and other interested parties and evidence was called and submissions were made by them about the environmental issue. 
4. There was evidence that within the conservation site are to be found the largest remnant of heathland habitat and the largest valley bog/heathland complex in the north east Hampshire section of the Thames basin. As well as being a home for the three species of birds, which depend on the heathland, the conservation site is home for a particularly rich intervertebrate fauna, including a number of nationally rare and scarce species. Among the factors which it was said would lead to a degradation of this site from the building of the 42 houses were the added pressure on the conservation site from the activities of the residents and their cats and dogs, from the dumping of garden refuse, the escape of and deliberate planting ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
O'Bryne, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For The Environment & Transport & Regions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 24, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 347

1 

Case no: co/1085/1999 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE 
Royal Courts of justice 
Strand, London, wc2a 2ll 

Wednesday 24 May 2000 

Before: 

MR JUSTICE goldring 
------------------- 

Regina 

v 

Secretary of State for the Environment and Transport and Regions 

Ex Parte O'Bryne 
____________________ 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
____________________ 
MR John hobson qc (instructed by Treasury Solicitors for the Respondent) 
Mr alistair craig (instructed by Donne Mileham & Haddock, Brighton, East Sus***, BW1 3YB, for the Applicant) 
____________________ 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 
The application 
This is an application by Ms O'Byrne for 
A declaration that the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act, 1938, cannot deprive her, as a secure tenant, of the right to buy her flat from Croydon Borough Council ("Croydon") under section 118 of the Housing Act, 1985. 
An order of certiorari to quash the decision said to deprive her of that right. 
An order of mandamus to oblige the Secretary of State to consent to the sale by Croydon to her. 

The basic issue Section 5(1) of the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938 ("the 1938 Act") provides that the consent of the minister has to be obtained before Green Belt land vested in a local authority is sold. If the relevant local authority is dissatisfied with the sale, the minister, before consenting to it, is obliged to hold a local inquiry. Section 118 of the Housing Act 1985 ("the 1985 Act") provides a right to a secure tenant to buy his council house. Ms O'Byrne is a such a tenant with such a right. Croydon was dissatisfied with the sale it ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Ragman, R (on the application of) v Special Adjudicator, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 01, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 411

- 1 - 



Case No: CO/3860/99 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 


Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 


Wednesday 1 November 2000 

B e f o r e : 

THE HON MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER 



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Linda Veloso (instructed by Figueiredo & Co for the Claimant) Sam Grodzinski (instructe
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
T, R (on the application of) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 19, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 404




Case No: 1729/98 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 


Date: 19th October 2000 



B e f o r e : 

THE HON MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY 




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr Mahie Abey (instructed by Evans and Company) for the Applicant 
Mr Hugo Keith (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) for the Respondent 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


J U D G M E N T 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright 



Mr Justice Maurice Kay: 
1. Late at night on the 26th February 1994 the Applicant was shot in his left leg when he was in area of south London. Because of the seriousness of his injuries he remained in hospital until June 1994. He spent a further month in hospital in September 1994 and towards the end of 1995 the injured leg had to be amputated. On the 9th March 1994 the Applicant applied to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ("the Board") for compensation. Although the Board has recently become the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, I shall refer to it by its name at the time of the events with which this case is concerned. His applicati...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Rochford District Council, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For The Environment, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 12, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 337

Case no: co/4875/98 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
CROWM OFFICE 
Royal Courts of justice 
Strand, London, wc2a 2ll 
Friday 12 May 2000 

Before: 

thE HON MR JUSTICE turner 

THE QUEEN 

V 
THE SECRETARY OF STATE 

for the ENVIRONMENT 

Ex parte ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL 
____________________ 

(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
____________________ 
MR Tim Mould (instructed by Treasury Solicitors for the 1st Respondent) 
Mr John Dagg (instructed by Rochford Dist. Council for the Applicant) 
____________________ 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 










Mr JUstice Turner: 
1. This is an application for judicial review of the decision of a planning inspector dated 23rd October 1998 under which h...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
British Board Of Film Classification, R v Video Appeals Committee Of British Board Of Film Classification, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 16, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 341

1 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CO /4074/99 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
(DIVISIONAL COURT) 
Royal Courts of Justice 
The Strand 
London WC2A 2LL 
Tuesday 16 May 2000 
B e f o r e: 
MR JUSTICE HOOPER 
- - - - - - 
R E G I N A 
-v- 
THE VIDEO APPEALS COMMITTEE OF THE 
BRITISH BOARD OF FILM CLASSIFICATION 
Respondent 
(EX PARTE THE BRITISH BOARD OF FILM CLASSIFICATION) 
Applicant 
- - - - - - 
Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street, 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel:    0171 831 3183   0171 831 3183 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - 
LORD LESTER OF HERNE HILL QC and MR ANDREW HUNTER (Instructed by Messrs Goodman Derrick, London, EC4A 1PT) appeared on behalf of the Applicant. 
MR DAVID PANNICK QC and MS JANE MULCAHY (Instructed by Messrs Henri Brandman, London, W1M 9LA) appeared on behalf of Sheptonhurst Limited. 
MR HUGH RICHARDS (Instructed by Messrs Clarkes) appeared on behalf of Prime Time Promotions (Shifnal) Limited. 
- - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 
Crown Copyright © 


Mr Justice Hooper: 
The applicant, the British Board of Film Classification ("BBFC") challenges by way of judicial review the decision of its Video Appeals Committee (the "VAC") to allow an appeal brought by Sheptonhurst Limited ("Sheptonhurst") and Prime Time (Shifnal) Ltd ("Prime Time") against the decision of the Board refusing an application to classify, in the absence of further editing, a number of videos as R18, that is: suitable for sale only in licensed *** shops. There are about 80 licensed *** shops, about half of which are owned by Sheptonhurst's parent company. The editing required the following material to be removed: 
"all shots of penetration by penis, hand or dildo as well as all shots of a penis being masturbated or taken into a woman's mouth". 
The respondent, after a two day hearing, allowed the appeal by a majority of 4 - 1 and granted the videos in question an R18 classification. It is not disputed that the remit of the VAC is to hear appeals "de novo" (page 9 of the judgment of the VAC). It is not merely exercising a supervisory jurisdiction of the kind exercised on a judicial review application. 
Permission to apply for judicial review was refused on paper by Dyson J. and granted after an oral hearing by Forbes J.. The Respondent did not take part in these proceedings. Sheptonhurst and Prime Time did appear. Counsel for Prime Time relied substantially on the arguments of counsel for Sheptonhurst, Mr David Pannick Q.C.. The panel which heard the appeal was presided over by Mr....
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Blackfordby & Boocorpe Action Group Ltd, R (on the application of) v Leicester County Council Hepworth Building Products Ltd & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 15, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 304



- 2 - 
In the HIGH Court of JUSTICE Case no: co/1822/99 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST The County Court 
At Chester 
Wednesday 15 March 2000 
Before: 
thE HON MR JUSTICE RICHARDS 
THE QUEEN 
-V- 
LEICESTER COUNTY COUNCIL 
HEPWORTH BUILDING PRODUCTS LIMITED and 
ONYX (UK) LIMITED 
RESPONDANT 
EX PARTE 
APPLICANT 
BLACKFORDBY & BOOTHCORPE ACTION GROUP LTD 
____________________ 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
___________________ 
COUNSEL: APPLICANT Mr D Wolfe instructed by public interest Lawyers 
1st RESONDENT Mr R Griffths QC & Mr J Strachan instructed by Leicester County Council Legal Department 
2nd RESPONDENT Mr A Gilbart QC instructed by Dibb Lupton Aslop (Solicitors) 
____________________ 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 

MR JUSTICE RICHARDS: 

The members of the applicant company are residents of the village Blackfordby and the hamlet of Boothorpe in Leicestershire. They seek to challenge through the company a decision by the first respondent, Leicestershire County Council, on 26 March 1999 to grant planning permission for the extraction of coal and clay and for the disposal of 3.9 million tonnes of putrescible waste on a site close to their homes. I shall refer to the site as a whole as "the Albion site", though it contains a number of separate areas of which Albion and Moira are the two most important. The second respondents ("Hepworth" and "Onyx") were parties to the joint application for planning permission. 
The matter came before me as an application for permission to apply for judicial review, but on the basis that I would hear full argument and, if permission were granted, would proceed to determine the substantive application for judicial review. I have decided to grant permission. What follows is therefore my decision on the substantive application. In addition, I accede to the application by the second respondents that they be formally joined as parties to the substantive proceedings for judicial review. 
The central question raised by the challenge is the status, for the purposes of a planning decision, of various environmental "objectives" laid down by the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994, which implement an EC directive. The applicant contends that it is not sufficient for the local planning authority to take those objectives into account as material considerations; they require the authority to go further and to minimise environmental impacts and risks. Subsidiary aspects of the challenge concern alleged failures to take into account material considerations and arguments as to the rationality of the Council's decision on certain matters. 
Factual background 
The area has a long history of clay and coal extraction. The Albion site is subject to a number of extant minerals consents. It suffers from dereliction through uncontrolled workings and a piecemeal approach to mineral extraction over the years. There were at the time of the decision challenged three unrestored voids totalling 7.7 million cubic metres, a stockpile of 5 million tonnes of clay, and continuing ad hoc opencast coal and clay mineral extraction. Since 1991 various strategies have been formulated to reclaim and improve derelict land to restore the voids. Those strategies have depended upon mineral working and land fill to fund the reclamation and enable restoration of the voids. In 1995 Hepworth, which is the largest land and clay owner in the Ashby Woulds, formed a joint venture company to submit a planning application for a comprehensive scheme of extraction and reclamation. Planning permission was refused by the Council in 1996. Coal and clay extraction resumed at the Albion site pursuant to the existing...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Thames Water Utilities Ltd v London Borough Of Bromley, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 04, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 301

- 1 - 


Case No: CO/4600/99 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
DIVISIONAL COURT 
CROWM OFFICE LIST 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Tuesday 4 March 2000 

B e f o r e : 

LORD JUSTICE SCHIEMANN 
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS BROWN 






- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
GEOFFREY STEPHENSON (instructed by Legal Department, Thames Water for the Appellant) 
MARK LOWE Q.C. & IAN ALBUTT (instructed by Legal Department London Borough of Bromley, Parker, Arrenberg, Dawson, Co for the Respondent) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 









Lord Justice Schiema...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
B, R (on the application of) v North East Thames Mental Health Review Tribunal, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 13, 2000, [2000] EWHC 640 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL 
CO 2556/1999 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
(CROWN OFFICE LIST) 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Tuesday, 13th June 2000 

Before: 

MR JUSTICE SCOTT-BAKER 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

REGINA 

-v- 

THE NORTH EAST THAMES MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW TRIBUNAL 
EX PARTE F. B 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

(Computer-aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited 
180 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HD 
Telephone No: 0207-421 4040/0207-404 1400 Fax...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Amin, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Home Department & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 17, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 371

10 


CO/4956/1998 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 


Date: 17th July 2000 

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW 

B e f o r e : 

THE HON MR JUSTICE LANGLEY 

Between: 

(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr A Underwood and Ms G Broadfoot (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor for the Respondent) 
Ms. M. Phelan (instructed by Messrs Thompson & Co for the Applicant) 


Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 
Crown Copyright © 
This application raises issues as to the appropriate procedure to be followed in the hearing of asylum appeals by Special Ad...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Telecom Securicor Cellular Radio Ltd v National Assembly For Wales & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 02, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 412

13 

CO/575/2000 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London 
WC2A 2LL 

Thursday, 2 November 2000 

BEFORE: 

THE HON MR JUSTICE RICHARDS 
BETWEEN: 

TELECOM SECURICOR 
CELLULAR RADIO LIMITED 
Claimant 
- v - 

THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES 
First Defendant 
- and - 
BRECON BEACONS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY 
[/align]*
...

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
North Yorkshire Police v Saddington, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 26, 2000, [2001] RTR 15,[2000] EWHC Admin 409

-- 1 -- 


Case No: CO/2184/2000 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Thursday 26 October 2000 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 

Miss Geraldine Kelly (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service, Harrogate) appeared for the Appellant 

Mr Richard Reed (instructed by Grahame Stowe Bateson) appeared for the Respondent 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 



Pill LJ: 

1. This is a prosecutor's appeal by way of case stated against decisions of the Justices for the County of North Yorkshire sitting at Harrogate on 21 February 2000 whereby they dismissed informations against Michael Saddington ("the respondent") with respect to conduct at Harrogate on 23 March 1999. 

2. The two informations the subject of this appeal allege that the respondent: 
"i) Did drive a motor vehicle namely an unregistered motorised scooter on Crescent Road whilst disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence. Contrary to section 103(1)(b) Road Traffic Act 1988 and schedule 2 to t...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Zietsman & Anor, R (on the application of) v Dental Practice Board, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 13, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 433

1 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CO/1828/1999 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
(ADMINISTRATIVE COURT) 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Wednesday, 13th December 2000 

B e f o r e: 

MR JACK BEATSON QC 

(Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) 
- - - - - - - 

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF 

(1) PAUL ZIETSMAN 
(2) MARIUS SCHMULIAN 

-v- 

DENTAL PRACTICE BOARD 

- - - - - - 
(Computer-aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited 
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG 
Telephone No: 0171-421 4040/0171-404 1400 
Fax No: 0171-831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 

- - - - - - 
MR S AIREY (instructed by Titmuss Sainer Dechert, 2 Serjeants' Inn, London EC4Y 1LT) appeared on behalf of the Applicants. 

MR P HAVERS, QC (instructed by Clyde & Co., 51 Eastcheap, London EC3M 1JP) appeared on behalf of the Respondent. 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 
Crown Copyright © 



1. JACK BEATSON Q.C.:- Introduction: Dentists providing treatment under the NHS are required to make claims for payment to the Dental Practice Board (the "Board"). This application concerns the power of the Board to suspend consideration of such claims for payment pending the outcome of police investigations as to whether those claiming payment, in the present case orthodontists, are involved in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the NHS. 

2. The Board is a statutory body established by section 37 of the National Health Service Act 1977 ("the 1977 Act") for the purpose of carrying out prescribed duties "with respect to ... dental treatment and appliances, and to the remuneration of dental practitioners providing dental services" within the NHS. Provision is made for the approval of payments by the Board and payment by it in regulation 20 of the National Health Service (General Dental Services) Regulations 1992 SI 1992 No 661 ("the Regulations"). Regulation 20(2) provides:- 

"The Board shall, where it approves a claim for remuneration made by a dentist, other than a salaried dentist, in respect of 

(a) care and treatment under a continuing care arrangement or a capitation arrangement; 
(b) treatment on referral; or 
(c) occasional treatment; 

completed by the dentist, pay, in accordance with the Scale of Fees, the remuneration due to the dentist in respect of such care and treatment, treatment on referral, or occasional treatment." 

Prior to 1992, the functions of the Board (then known as the Dental Estimates Board) were to approve claims for payment but not to pay them (Regulation 11 of the National Health Service (General Dental Services) Regulations 1973). 

3. The claims with which this application is concerned are in respect of orthodontic treatment. Since the cost of orthodontic treatment commonly amounts to several hundred pounds for a full course of treatment, which commonly takes 2-3 years to complete, schedule 4 to the Regulations requires that all courses of orthodontic treatment which it is anticipated will cost more than £600 must be given prior approval by the Board. The Board generally proceeds on the basis of the dentist's own assessment. In the case of orthodontic treatment, regulation 20(6) of the Regulations empowers the Board to make interim payments on account pending completion of the treatment. Further, since most orthodontic treatment is provided to children who are exempt from paying a "patients charge", ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Adams, R (on the application of) v Vale Of Glamorgan DC, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 12, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 323



- 1 - 
Case no: co/2775/99 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
CROWM OFFICE 
Royal Courts of justice 
Strand, London, wc2a 2ll 

Friday 12 April 2000 

Before: 
thE HON MR JUSTICE richards 

Regina 
V 
Vale of Glamorgan DC 
Ex parte David Adams 
____________________ 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
____________________ 
No Council for Respondents 
Mr Elvin (instructed be 4 Breams Buildings) for the Applicant 
____________________ 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 
Crown Copyright © 



MR JUSTICE RICHARDS: 
The applicant, Mr David Adams, is the tenant farmer of The Darren Farm at Cowbridge in the Vale of Glamorgan. The farm has been farmed by the family since 1941. The applicant now runs it in partnership with his sister and brother under the name of E.T. Adams & Son. His mother used to be a member of the partnership and used to live in the house at the farm, but she died in 1999. His sister thereupon inherited the mother's share and moved into the house. The farm itself is a dairy farm and is also used for the purposes of a livestock haulage business. The freehold owners of the land are the Trustees of the Penllyn Estate. In the documents before the court there is an allegation that the Trustees have conducted a vendetta against the Adams family over several years. That, however, is not something about which I can or should form a judgment. It is not relevant to the issues before me and the Trustees have chosen not to take any part in the p...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 



Secretary of State for the Home Department, R (on the application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 15, 2000, [2000] EWHC 638 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL 
CO/1928/2000 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
(ADMINISTRATIVE COURT) 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Friday, 15th December 2000 

Before: 

MR JUSTICE COLLINS 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF Claimant 
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT 

VERSUS 

MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW TRIBUNAL Defendant 
and 
M.W. and F.O. Interveners 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Computer-aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited 
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HD 
Telephone No: 0207-421 4040/0207-404 1400 
Fax No: 0207-831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
MR RABINDER SINGH (Instructed by the Treasury Solicitors, Queen Anne's Chambers, 28 Broadway, London, SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the Claimant. 

MS A FOSTER (Instructed by the Treasury Solicitors, Queen Anne's Chambers, 28 Broadway, London, SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the Defendant. 

MR P BOWEN (Instructed by Scott-Moncrieff, Harbour & Sinclair Solicitors, Office 5, 19 Greenwood Place, London, NW5 1LB) appeared on behalf of FO). 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
JUDGMENTJUDGMENT 
1. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: In form, this case involves an application by the Secretary of State for a declaration that a decision by a Mental Health Review Tribunal, made on 14th March of this year, to adjourn a case before it until 8th June of this year, was wrong in law. We are now in December. As may be obvious, the adjournment itself is long past and to that extent the claim is academic. Indeed, no one has appeared before me to represent the patient whose case the Tribunal was hearing. But the issue is of considerable importance to the tribunals and to patients. In those circumstances, it is clearly desirable that the matter should be decided, particularly as it is unlikely that any decision to adjourn will be live by the time judicial review claims could be heard. There is ample authority to justify me hearing the case, notwithstanding that it may be thought to be academic. 
2. Although no one has appeared on behalf of the patient involved, Mr Bowen has been permitted to appear before me and to make submissions on behalf of another patient who found himself in exactly the same position in a hearing before another tribunal. It has been helpful to have submissions from the patient's point of view, and I am satisfied that all possible arguments relevant to the issue have been placed before me. 
3. The factual background can be shortly stated. The patient, whom I shall refer to as ``Ms W'', was convicted in December 1990 of offences of burglary, handling and possession of an offensive weapon. Reports before the Crown Court showed her to be suffering from a psychopathic disorder, and so she was ordered to be detained in a special hospital and a restriction order was made. She was placed in Broadmoor. She applied to the Mental Health Review Tribunal in October 1999; this was not her first application. A few days before the hearing was due, her solicitors wrote requesting an adjournment because, to quote the letter: 
``We feel that it would be very helpful to the Tribunal to have information about a possible assessment from an all-women unit before deciding this tribunal ...'' 
4. Two days later, the Home Office, who had of course been notified and served with this letter from the patient's solicitors, wrote to the Tribunal saying this: 
``I should be grateful if you would respectfully remind both the solicitors and the Tribunal members that directions about transfers are outside the Tribunal's remit and that, therefore, it is inappropriate for the hearing to be adjourned solely for that purpose.'' 5. ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Society Of Lloyds v Twinn & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 23, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 308





CHBKF 1999/0660/B3 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHBKF 1999/0659/B2 
CHANCERY DIVISION 

Thursday 23rd March 2000 

Before:- 

THE VICE-CHANCELLOR: 

The Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Scott 

The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Chadwick 

The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Buxton 


B E T W E E N:- 


_________________________ 

(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
_________________________ 

Mr J. Briggs instructed by The Society of Lloyds for the Appellant 
Ms C. Mackenzie-Smith instructed by Geoffrey George Twinn and Gail Sally Anne Twinn for the Respondents 
_________________________ 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 





The Vice-Chancellor: 
1. This is an appeal by the Society of Lloyd's (Lloyd's) against the judgment of Jacob J., given on 11 May 1999. The respondents to the appeal are Mr and Mrs Twinn. They are, or were, Lloyd's Names. 

2. On 12 July 1998 Lloyd's served on Mr and Mrs Twinn statutory demands. A separate statutory demand was served on each. The statutory demands called for payment of sums said to be owing by them to Lloyd's under the so-called Reconstruction and Renewal Agreement entered into between Lloyd's and each of the Names who accepted the terms on offer. No application to set aside the statutory demands was made. Nor was payment made. So, on 23 September 1998 Lloyd's petitioned for bankruptcy orders to be made against Mr and Mrs Twinn. There was a separate petition against each of them. The petition against Mr Twinn alleged an indebtedness to Lloyd's of £1,018,832. Paragraph 2 of the petition said this:- "2. The debtor is justly and truly indebted to us in the aggregate sum of £1,018,832 being the amount due to us pursuant to the terms of Settlement Agreement concluded between us and the debtor in 1996 and payable by Noon on 30 September 1996 whereby the debtor is deemed to be an "Accepting Name". By a letter dated 27 June 19...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
DPP v West, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 17, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 403


-- 1 -- 

Case No: CO/2276/2000 






- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr John Riley (instructed by the CPS, Buckinghamshire Branch) appeared for the Appellant 
The Respondent was not represented 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright 

Pill LJ: 
1. This is a prosecutor's appeal by way of case stated against a decision of the Buckinghamshire Justices, sitting at Aylesbury, on 28 March 2000. The Justices made an order under Re...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Al-Fawwaz v The Governor Of Brixton Prison, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 30, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 424




Case No: CO/3833/99 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Thursday 30 November 2000 

B e f o r e : 

LORD JUSTICE BUXTON 
MR JUSTICE ELIAS 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr Edward Fitzgerald QC and Mr Keir Starmer (instructed by Raja & Partners for the Applicant) 
Mr James Lewis and Miss Saba Naqshbandi (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor for the Respondent) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 




Lord Justice Buxton: 
1. This the judgment of the court, to which both members have made substantial contributions. 
The basic facts and the issues 
2. The applicant Mr Al-Fawwaz is accused in proceedings before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York of conspiring with Usama bin Laden and others between 1 January 1993 and 27 September 1998 by agreeing that: 
a) citizens of the the USA would be murdered in the the USA and elsewhere; 
b) bombs would be planted and exploded at American embassies and other American installations; 
c) American officials would be killed in the Middle East and Africa; 
d) American soliders deployed in the United Nations peacekeeping missions would be murdered; 
e) American Diplomats and other internationally protected persons would be murdered. 
3. The category referred to of Internationally Protected Persons [IPP] is recognised by the [United Kingdom] Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978. That provides that any murder of an IPP outside the United Kingdom is justiciable within the United Kingdom, even if the accused is not a United Kingdom citizen. 4. The USA government's case alleges as follows. Bin Laden was the moving force in an Islamic terrorist organisation called Al-Qaida, devoted to violent opposition to, in particular, the USA. The organisation issued various Fatwahs or rulings, which members were obliged to obey, including rulings requiring the pursuit of jihad (holy war) against the USA. Since 1993 al Qaida had operated a cell in Kenya. In 1994 it created an organisation in London called the Advice and Reform Committee [ARC], which purported to be devoted to peaceful activities against breaches of human rights in Arab countries, but which was in fact the London organisation of the conspiracy. Amongst the alleged fruits of this conspira...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Holding & Barnes Plc, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Environment, Transport & Regions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 01, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 432





Case Nos: 3062/2000, 3606/2000 
3742/2000, 3904/2000 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISIONAL COURT 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Wednesday 13 December 2000 
B e f o r e : 

LORD JUSTICE TUCKEY 

MR. JUSTICE HARRISON 
----------------------------- 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 


Crown Copyright © 









This is the judgment of the court.: 
Introduction. 

These four applications raise the very important question whether the processes by which the Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions (SSETR) makes decisions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) and orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992 (TWA), the Highways Act 1980 (HA) and the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (ALA) are compatible with Article 6 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. This Article says : 
In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ........ everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ........ by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law." 
It is common ground that such decisions and orders do affect civil rights and obligations. In the present cases the SSETR does not argue that he is himself an independent and impartial tribunal but contends that the decision making process as a whole including the right of appeal to and the reviewing role of the High Court does comply with Article 6. Whether he is right about this is the central question we have to decide. If he is not, the SSETR's alternative submission is that this court should expand its role to review his decisions consistently with Sections 3 and 6 of The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) so as to make the processes compliant. These sections say : 
3. (1) So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights. 
6. (1) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right. 
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an act if :- 
(a) as the result of one or more provisions of primary legislation, the authority could not have acted differently; or 
(b) in the case of one or more provisions of, or made under, primary legislation which cannot be read or given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights, the authority was acting so as to give effect to or enforce those provisions. 
(3) In this section "Public Authority" includes - 
a court ........ 
If the processes are not compliant and cannot be made so, the SSETR contends that Section 6 (2) HRA applies to them so Section 6 (1), which would otherwise make his acts unlawful, does not apply. Such a finding would enable us to make declarations of incompatibility under Section 4 HRA which says : 
4. (1) Subsection (2) applies in any proceedings in which a court determines whether a provision of primary legislation is compatible with a Convention right. 
(2) If the court is satisfied that the provision is incompatible with a Convention right, it may make a declaration of that incompatibility. 
Two of the cases, (R -v- SSETR ex p. Holding and Barnes PLC (HB) and R -v- SSETR ex p. Premier Leisure (PL) ) involve decisions by the SSETR to call in their applications for planning permission under Section 77 TCPA. As well as the Article 6 challenge to the process as a whole HB contends that the decision to call in should be quashed on conventional judicial review grounds. The third case (Alconbury Developments Ltd. (ADL) -v- SSETR) involves "recovered" appeals against refusals of planning permission under Sections 78 and 79 TCPA and proposed orders under Section 1 TWA relating to the construction and operation of a railway in connection with the proposed re-development of RAF Alconbury. The fourth case (SSETR -v- Legal and General (LG)) involves proposed highway orders and related compulsory purchase orders (CPO) in connection with a scheme to improve the A34/M4 junction. It is the SSETR's acts in calling in or recovering planning decisions and proposing to make TWA, HA or CPO orders which are alleged to be unlawful under Section 6 (1) HRA because they do not comply with Article 6. 
In the PL case a public inquiry has been held but no decision has yet been made. In the ADL and LG cases public inquiries have started but are now adjourned to await the decision of this court. We have been told that a number of other important public inquiries have been adjourned for the same reason. For these reasons the hearing before us was arranged at short notice and we are extremely grateful to all involved for the huge amount of work which has gone into its preparation and the presentation of the argument. In the interests of producing a judgment quickly we intend to summarise the material put before us (about 2,500 pages of evidence, 200 authorities and nearly 5 days of submissions from 10 counsel) as shortly as possible. In view of th...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Fernback & Ors v London Borough Of Harrow, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 11, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 278


Case No: CO/3942/2000 
Neutral Citation Number: [2001] EWHC Admin 278 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Wednesday 11th April 2000 

B e f o r e : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE RICHARDS 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr Eian Caws (instructed by Mishcon de Reya for the Claimants) 
Mr David Mole QC, Mr Paul Brown and Mr Paul Greatorex (instructed by Harrow Legal Services for the Defendant) 
Mr Matthew Horton QC and Mr Reuben Taylor (instructed by Turbervilles for the Interested Party, Laing Homes Limited) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 

Mr Justice Richards: 
1. The claimants challenge a decision made by the Planning Committee of the defendant council on 15 September 2000 to grant planning permission (subject to the completion of a section 106 agreement) for a residential development at RAF Stanmore Park, Uxbridge Road, Stanmore. The application site, which covers some 14 hectares, was formerly used for the purposes of the RAF. The proposed development includes 411 dwellings in houses and flats, community facilities, access, parking and public open space. The developer is Laing Homes (North London) Limited. 
2. The claim raises three main issues: (1) whether the council erred in its consideration of the traffic impact of the development, (2) whether there was a breach of the regulations concerning environmental impact assessments and (3) whether the decision was procedurally unfair. 
Brief factual history 
3. In 1999 Laing Homes sought a screening opinion from the council pursuant to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 as to whether the proposed development would require an EIA. On 13 September 1999 the council, through its Chief Planning Officer acting under delegated powers, gave a screening opinion to the effect that the proposal was not considered to require an EIA. The reasons for that opinion included: 
"1. The proposal involves the redevelopment of a site that contains a substantial amount of building and hard standing and would not be on a significantly greater scale than the previous use. In addition, the estimated number of dwellings will be significantly lower than the indicative guideline for "urbanisation" set out in DETR Circular 02/99. 
2. The Local Planning Authority will require a Transport Impact Assessment to be submitted at the planning application stage. This should assess the predicted impact of the transportation demands of the development and include measures to mitigate any adverse effect." 4. An application for planning permission, at that time relating to 390 dwellings, was submitted on 3 November 1999. It was soon followed by a transportation impact assessment prepared by Singleton Clamp & Partners for the developer. The application was subsequent...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Norgren, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, February 18, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 296,[2000] 3 WLR 181,[2000] QB 817


- 20 - 




Case No: C0-4530-97 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (DIVISIONAL COURT) 
In the matter of an application for judicial review 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Friday, 18 February 2000 

B e f o r e : 


LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES 
(LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL) 

Mr JUSTICE KLEVAN 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Clare Montgomery QC & James Lewis (instructed by Kingsley Napley) 
for the applicant 
James Turner QC (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State 
Paul Garlick QC (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the 
United States Government 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 


LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES: 
The applicant Mr Christian Norgren, seeks judicial review of an order to proceed made by the Home Secretary on 30 September 1997 under paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 1 to the Extradition Act 1989. 

The applicant is a Swedish citizen. In 1989 he was a director of Asea Brown Boveri Ltd, a multinational corporation. In his capacity as director he became aware of a proposed merger between an Asea Brown Boveri subsidiary and a Delaware corporation, Combustion Engineering Inc. It is alleged that with that knowledge, and in expectation that the merger would cause a rise in the value of the stock in Combustion Engineering, the applicant procured the purchase of Combustion Engineering stock on his own behalf on the New York and Pacific Stock Exchanges. 
The...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Rezouali, R (on the application of) v Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 31, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 318

- 13 - 







Case Nos: CO/2188/1999; CO/984/2000; CO/309/2000 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
COURT OF APPEAL (QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION) 
DIVISIONAL COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Friday 31st March 2000 

B e f o r e : 

LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY 
and 
MR JUSTICE BUTTERFIELD 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Charles Salter ( for the applicant (Rezouali) and the respondent (Mendoza)(instructed Wilson Carca London, W1V 5AH) 
Timothy Spencer (instructed by Legal Services, City of Westminster Council for the City of Westminster Council) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 



Lord Justice Kennedy: 
1. BACKGROUND TO THESE PROCEEDINGS 
We have before us an application for Judicial Review and two appeals by way of Case Stated, arising out of two separate sets of proceedings taken by Westminster City Council for the closure of the ground floor of Nos. 5 and 6 Walkers Court, Soho, London, W.1., on the basis that, in each case, the premises were being used as an unlicensed *** shop. Mr Rezouali traded at No.5 and Mr Mendoza at No.6. 
Mr Rezouali's case came before Mrs McIvor, sitting as an Acting Stipendiary Magistrate at Horseferry Road Magistrates Court on 19th May 1999, when she gave her reasons for making the order sought. The power to make the order is to be found in The City ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Mapere, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 03, 2000, [2000] EWHC 633 (Admin),[2001] Imm AR 89

SMITH BERNAL 
CO/4766/1999 
Neutral Citation Number: [2000] EWHC 633 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
(CROWN OFFICE LIST) 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Date: Monday, 3rd July 2000 

B e f o r e: 

MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN 

- - - - - - - 


REGINA 

- v - 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT 
EX PARTE MAPERE 

- - - - - - - 

(Computer-aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited 
180 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HD 
Telephone No: 0171-421 4040/0171-404 1400 
Fax No: 0171-831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 

- - - - - - - 
MR ALBERT FALUYI (instructed by Nathaniel & Co, London, E8 4AA) appeared on behalf of the Applicant. 

MR P SALES (instructed by the Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Respondent. 
- - - - - - - 
J U D G M E N T 
1. MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN:This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Chief Immigration Officer of 29th November 1999, refusing the applicant leave to enter the United Kingdom for one year for the purpose of embarking on a course of study, and granting only temporary admission into the United Kingdom. 2. The applicant comes from Zimbabwe. He claims to have a legitim...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Persaud, R (on the application of) v University Of Cambridge, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 26, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 374


- 22 - 



Case No: CO/772/2000 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 


Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 


Date: 21st July 2000 



B e f o r e : 

THE HON MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Gregory Jones & Mr A Warner (instructed by Teacher Stern Selby for the Applicant) 
Robert Jay QC& Mr C Thomann (instructed by Mills & Reeve for the Respondent ) 


Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 

Mr Justice Maurice Kay: 1. The Applicant is a scientist of undoubted ability. In 1992 she was awarded a first class honours degree in astronomy after three years at University College, London. Her ambition was to work in the field of astrophysics. In October 1992 she was admitted to the University of Cambridge as a Graduate Student in order to carry out research leading to the award of a Ph. D. She commenced work on "Broad Emission Lines in Active Galactic Nuclei". Her research supervisor was Dr. Andrew Robinson. The expected date for the completion of her research was September 1995. For the first year she made normal progress. However, in the second year things began to go wrong. According to the Applicant the problem stemmed from conflict with Dr. Robinson. She considered that he had involved her in collaboration without her knowledge and was more interested in using her work for his own purposes. Dr. Robinson, on the other hand, considered that she had made limited progress in the second year and had become increasingly uncommunicative. In the summer of 1994 he wrote to Mr. Paul Aslin, the Secretary to the Institute of Astronomy, to express his concerns. In September 1994 Mr. Aslin involved Dr. Paul Hewett in the matter. There followed a s...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
M L, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Heal, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 11, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 397


- 18 - 



Case No: CO/4858/1999 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 


Date: 11 October 2000 

B e f o r e : 

THE HON MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER 




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr Richard Gordon QC & Fenella Morris(instructed by Peter Edwards & Co for the Applicant) 
Mr Philip Sales (instructed by The Department of Health for the Respondent) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright 



Mr Justice Scott Baker: 
The Applicant is a patient at Rampton Hospital. He seeks to challenge Health Service Circular HSC 1999/160 dated 23 July 1999 which sets out Directions and Guidance for visits by children to patients in high security hospitals namely Ashworth, Broadmoor and Rampton. Patients in these hospitals suffer from mental disorders and need to be treated and cared for in conditions of special security because of their dangerous, violent or criminal tendencies. 
The statement of Jennifer Anne Gray sets out in detail the background to this challenge and the circumstances leading to the promulgation of the circular. Section 4 of the National Health Service Act 1977 requires the Secretary of State for Health to provide special hospitals for detained mentally disordered patients. There are three such hospitals of which Rampton, with which this case is directly concerned, has a catchment area that comprises Yorkshire and parts of eastern and central England. It has an average patient population of around 450. Patients are housed in high security wards and the average stay is 7½ years, although some patients remain a good deal longer. Ov...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Bancoult, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Foreign & Commonweal Office, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 03, 2000, [2001] QB 1067,[2000] EWHC Admin 413




Case No: CO/3775/98 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
(THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT) 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Friday 3 November 2000 

B e f o r e : 

LORD JUSTICE LAWS 
MR JUSTICE GIBBS 





- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Sir Sydney Kentridge QC, Laurens Fransman QC and Anthony Bradley (instructed by Sheridans for the Appellant) 
David Pannick QC, Philip Sales, Cecilia Ivimy (instructed by Treasury Solicitors for the Respondents) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 




Lord Justice Laws: 

Introductory 

1 The Chagos Archipelago is in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Its islands and Mauritius were ceded by France to Great Britain in 1814. From that date until 1965 the Archipelago was governed as part of the British colony of Mauritius, though Mauritius itself is some 1,000 - 1,200 miles distant from the Archipelago. On at least some of the islands there lived in the 1960s a people called the Ilois. They were an indigenous people: they were born there, as were one or both of their parents, in many cases one or more of their grandparents, in some cases (it is said) one or more of their great-grandparents. Some may perhaps have traced an earlier indigenous ancestry. In the 1960s by agreement between the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of America it was resolved that there be established a major American military base upon the chief island of the Archipelago, Diego Garcia. There is no doubt but that the defence facility which the base provides is of the highest importance. In a letter of 21 June 2000 from the US Department of State it is described as "an all but indispensable platform" for the fulfilment of defence and security responsibilities in the Arabian Gulf, the Middle East, South Asia and East Africa. In order to facilitate the establishment of the base, the Archipelago was first divided from Mauritius and constituted (together with certain other islands) as a separate colony to be known as the "British Indian Ocean Territory" ("BIOT"). That was done by the British Indian Ocean Territory Order 1965 ("the BIOT Order"). Then in 1971 the whole of the Ilois population of BIOT (and other civilians living there) were compulsorily removed to Mauritius. Their removal was effected under a measure called the Immigration Ordinance 1971 ("the Ordinance"). The Ordinance was made by the Commissioner for BIOT ("the Commissioner"), who is the second respondent in these proceedings for judicial review. He was an official created by s.4 of the BIOT Order. He made, or purportedly made, the Ordinance under powers conferred by s.11 of the BIOT Order. As a matter of fact he made it, as is effectively accepted by Mr David Pannick QC for the respondents, upon the orders of the Queen's Ministers in London. The first respondent is the Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The principal issue in the case is whether there was any lawful power to remove the Ilois from BIOT, in the manner in which that was done. There is also a question whether this court has any jurisdiction to entertain the case. The applicant is an Ilois from Peros Banhos in the Archipelago. Leave to seek judicial review was granted by Scott Baker J on 3 March 1999 after a hearing on notice. No point is now or was then taken by either respondent as to time or delay. 

2 Though it will be necessary to examine other legislation, it is convenient by way of introduction to set out the relevant terms of the BIOT Order and the Ordinance. I should first say that the BIOT Order was made on 8 November 1965 by "Her Majesty, by virtue and in exercise of the powers in that behalf by the Colonial Boundaries Act 1895, or otherwise in Her Majesty vested". The Act of 1895 merely regulates the alteration of a colonial boundary, when that is sought to be done: it affords no source of the vires of the BIOT Order for presently relevant purposes. It was common ground at the Bar, and it seems to me plainly to be right, that the BIOT Order is an Order in Council made under the powers of the Royal Prerogative. 

3 Ss.3 - 5 of the BIOT Order provide: 

"3. As from the date of this Order - 

the Chagos Archipelago, being islands which immediately before the date of this Order were included in the Dependencies of Mauritius, and 
the Farquhar Islands, the Aldabra Group and the Island of Desroches, being islands which immediately before the date of this Order were part of the Colony of Seychelles, 
shall together form a separate colony which shall be known as the British Indian Ocean Territory. 
4. There shall be a Commissioner for the Territory who shall ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Legal Aid Area No 1 (London) Appeal Committee v McCormick, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 26, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 351

Case No CO/5099/98 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN S BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 

Friday 26 May 2000 

Before: 

The Hon. Mr Justice Elias 


Between: 

THE LEGAL AID AREA No 1 (LONDON) APPEAL COMMITTEE 
(Respondents) 

-and- 

Ex parte McCORMICK 

(Applicant) 
__________________________________ 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
__________________________________ 

Mr M Belloff Q.C. and Mr M Collings appeared on behalf of the Applicant 

Ms B Lang Q.C. and Mr T Weisselberg appeared on behalf of the 1st Respondent 
__________________________________ 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 









JUDGMENT 

The Applicant in this case was an Executive director of Atlantic Computers plc. He held that position during the take-over of that company by British and Commonwealth Holdings in 1988. Unfortunately that transaction resulted in both companies being placed in administration. Thereafter the Applicant faced four separate sets of legal proceedings. He was prosecuted and acquitted of insider dealing; he was the subject of an application for disqualification as a company director made by the Secretary of State; and he was sued in two civil actions arising out of the take-over. All these proceedings have now come to an end. Between 28 February and 24 July 1996 he made four applications...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Barry, R (On The Application Of) v Liverpool City Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 07, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 321


- 16 - 




Case No: CO/1770/99 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 
Liverpool Crown Court 
Queen Elizabeth II Law Courts 
Liverpool L2 1XA 


Friday 7th April 2000 

B e f o r e : 

THE HON MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY 

Application for permission to apply for judicial review 


__________________________________ 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
__________________________________ 
Mr Vincent Fraser (instructed by Liverpool City Council for the Respondent) 
Mr John de Bono (instructed by Kilner Polson for the Applicant) 
__________________________________ 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 



Mr Justice Maurice Kay: Liverpool City Council (the Council) is the licensing authority for the grant of public entertainment licences within its area pursuant to section 1 and schedule 1 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. Such licences are required for "public dancing or music or any other public entertainment of a like kind" (schedule 1, paragraph 1(2)). Currently, there are over three hundred and fifty such licences in respect of premises in Liverpool. They customarily have door staff who control entry to and security on the premises. For some years there has been concern in Liverpool and elsewhere about the quality of door staff on premises with public entertainment licences. This is apparent from Home Office and Police studies and is summarised in the present pr...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Bogou, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Home Department & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, February 15, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 292


- 13 - 


Case No: CO/2972/99 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Tuesday, 15 February 2000 

B e f o r e : 

THE HON MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY 

Eleonor Gray (instructed by The Secretary of State for the Respondent) 
Eric Fripp (instructed by Roelens & Co. for the Applicant) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 



Mr Justice Maurice Kay: This is a renewed application for permission to apply for Judicial Review, permission having been refused on the papers by Scott Baker J. The Applicant is a citizen of the Ivory Coast. She arrived in the United Kingdom with three children on 14 July 1995, having travelled from the Ivory Coast via France using a false passport. On 24 July 1995 she claimed asylum. On 5 March 1997 she was interviewed. She claimed that she and her husband had suffered persecution in the Ivory Coast by reason of their involvement with an opposition party known as the FPI. She described a number of incidents. On 29 December 1991 there had been an incident in which a car had been driven at the Applicant, her husband and their youngest daughter, on which ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Nationwide Access Ltd & Anor v Customs & Excise, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, February 14, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 290

11 


Case No : CO/1953/99 



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 



Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London WC2A 2LL 

Monday, 14 February 2000 


Before: 

MR JUSTICE DYSON 


NATIONWIDE ACCESS LTD Appellants 
PTP AERIAL PLATFORMS LTD 
v 
COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS & EXCISE Respondents 

(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040 Fax No 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 

Julian Ghosh (instructed by Jeffrey Green Russell for the Appellants) 
High McKay (instructed by Solicitor for HM Customs & Excise for the Respondent) 


Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 
MR JUSTICE DYSON: 
Introduction 
These are joined appeals from a decision of the VAT & Duties Tribunal, Chairman His Honour Stephen Oliver QC ("the Tribunal"), released on 29 March 1999 dismissing appeals under section 12A of the Finance Act 1994 against assessments to hydrocarbon duty. The short point of construction that lies at the heart of the appeals is: what is a "mobile crane" within the meaning of paragraph 9, Schedule 1 of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 ("HODA")? The vehicles operated by the two appellants are known as the "Bronto Skylift" and "Simon Galaxy". Assessments to duty were made o...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
B, R (on the application of) v Uxbridge County Court, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, August 11, 2000, [2000] EWHC 641 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL 
NO: CO/4849/99 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Friday, 11th August 2000 
B e f o r e: 

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN 

- - - - - - - - - - - - 


R e g i n a 


-v- 


UXBRIDGE COUNTY COURT 
EX PARTE B 

- - - - - - - - - - - - 
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph notes of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 
180 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HG 
Telephone No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040 Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - 

MS FENELLA MORRIS (instructed by R H Campbell Taylor, 3 Bradbury St, London N16 8JN) appeared on behalf of the Applicant 
MR RABINDER SINGH (Amicus Curiae) (instructed by Hillingdon Legal Services, Uxbridge) appeared on behalf of the Respondent 

- - - - - - - - - - - - 
J U D G M E N TJUDGMENT 1. MR JUSTICE HIDDEN: The decision sought to be impugned by this application for judicial review is the order of the ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Toth & Anor, R (On The Application Of) v General Medical Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 23, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 361



Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2A 2LL 
23rd June 2000 
B e f o r e 

MR JUSTICE LIGHTMAN 

BETWEEN: 

THE QUEEN 

and 

THE GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL 
Respondent 

EX PARTE ARPAD TOTH 
Applicant 

DR DAVID JARMAN 
Interested Party 
- - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - 

Mr Timothy Straker QC & Mr Clive Rawlings (Instructed by Messrs Russell-Cooke Potter & Chapman, 2 Putney Hill, Putney, London SW15 6AB) appeared on behalf of the Applicant. 
Mr Mark Shaw (Instructed by Messrs Field Fisher Waterhouse, 35 Vine Street, London EC3N 2AA) appeared on behalf of the Respondent. 
Miss Mary O'Rourke (Instructed by the Solicitor of The Medical Defence Union Ltd, 3 Devonshire Place, London W1N 2EA) appeared on behalf of Dr Jarman. 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 

INTRODUCTION 1. This is an application by the applicant ("Mr Toth") for judicial review of two decisions ("the Decisions") of the respondent ("the GMC"), the first dated the 23rd March 1998 ("the First Decision") and the second dated the 23rd July 1998 ("the Second Decision"). Mr Toth made a complaint ("the Complaint") to the GMC against his general practitioner Dr Jarman. Under the rules governing the conduct of disciplinary proceedings by the GMC, the General Medical Council Preliminary Proceedings Committee and Professional Conduct Committee (Procedure) Rules Order 1988 ("the Rules") made under the Medical Act 1983 ("the Act"), complaints against registered medical practitioners ("practitioners") have to go through and survive two filters or processes of examination before they are heard by the Professional Conduct Committee ("the PCC"). The first is examination by a member of the GMC, (colloquially and hereinafter referred to as a "screener") to decide whether the complaints "need not proceed further". If the screener does not so decide, the Preliminary Proceedings Committee ("the PPC") must then decide whether the complaints "ought to be referred for inquiry" to the PCC. Only if the PPC does so decide do the complaints then proceed before the PCC. By the Decisions the screener decided that the Complaint did not need to be investigated. By this application Mr Toth challenges the legality of the Decisions. Critical for this purpose is the statutory role of the ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Berkshire & Oxfordshire Magistrates' Courts' Committee v Gannon & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 14, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 326



Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2A 2LL 

Friday 14th April 2000 

B e f o r e 

THE HON. MR JUSTICE CARNWATH 

BERKSHIRE AND OXFORDSHIRE 
MAGISTRATES' COURTS' COMMITTEE 
Appellant 
-V- 

MRS J.M. GANNON AND MRS K.J.PIZZEY 
Respondents 
__________ 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
__________ 
Mrs A. Proops (Judgment) 
Mr Adrian Lynch (instructed by Slough Borough Council Legal Department) appeared on behalf of the appellant. 

Mr Oliver Segal (instructed by Messrs Thompsons, Congress House, Great Russell Street WC1B 3LW) appeared on behalf of the respondents. 
__________ 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 









The Hon. Mr Justice Carnwath This is an appeal against a decision of the Employment Tribunal given on 23rd November 1998. As the Tribunal said, it concerns a somewhat obscure corner of their jurisdiction, relating to what are known as the "Crombie" Regulations. (No-one before me was able to explain the name). These are the Justices of the Peace Act 1949 (Compensation) Regulations 1978, as amended. They regulate the compensation payable on redundancy to justices' clerks or their assistants. The case turns on a short statutory q...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Otaru, R (On The Application Of), Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 24, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 346
















Page 7 






Case no: CO/1088/2000 
IN THE high court of justice 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
CROWn OFFICE LIST 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London wc2 

Wednesday, 24th May 2000 

Before: 
mr justice Owen 

------------------- 

R e g i n a 

- v - 

ex paret Otaru 
____________________ 
(Computer-Aided Transcript of the stenograph notes of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
____________________ 

MR K HAMMOND (instructed by Victor Evans & Co, London SE1) appeared on behalf of the Applicant 

MISS J COLLIER (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Defendant 
____________________ 

J U D G M E N T (s Approv...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Lincoln Co-Operative Society Ltd, R (on the application of) v South Holland District Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 14, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 419

1 

Case no: CO/1640/2000 

IN THE high court of justice 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 

Royal Courts of justice 
Strand, London, 
wc2a 2ll 

Tuesday, 14 November, 2000 

Before: 

MRS JUSTICE SMITH 

------------------- 

The Queen 
-v- 
South holland district Council 
Appellant 
ex parte 
Respondent 
Lincoln co-operative society ltd 
____________________ 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 , Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
____________________ 

Mr N. Nardecchia (instructed byAndrew & Co, St Swithn's Square, Lincoln) for the Appellant 

Mr T. Corner (instructed by Marples & Son, 23 New Road, Spalding, Lincs PE11 1DH) for the Respondent 

____________________ 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 





Mrs Justice Smith: 

This is an application by the Lincoln Co-operative Society Ltd (the Co-op), brought with the permission of Scott Baker J, for judicial review of a decision of the South Holland District Council Development Control (Planning) Committee (the Council) on the 23rd February 2000, when they granted planning permission to Westry Developments Ltd (Westry) for a retail development at a site at Station Yard, Long Sutton, Lincolnshire. 

Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 states that in dealing with an application for planning permission a local planning authority shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations. 

Section 54A of the Act requires that a local planning authority shall determine a planning application in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The relevant development plan for South Holland comprised two documents: the Lincolnshire County Structure Plan Alteration Number 2 ( 1994) and the South Holland District Local Plan (1998). The Lincolnshire Structure Plan provided at Policy 24A: 
`Major new shopping development within or adjacent to the urban areas but outside their centres as may be defined in local plans will normally be permitted where: Access is adequate and the additional traffic generated can be accommodated on the surrounding road netw...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc, R v Customs & Excise, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 14, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 370

12 



CO/1606/2000 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 


Date: 14th July 2000 


B e f o r e : 

TH E HON MR JUSTICE LANGLEY 


Between: 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Mr P. Mantle (instructed by the Solicitor for the Customs and Excise for the Respondents) 
Mr D Vaughan QC (instructed by Messrs Herbert Smith for the Applicant) 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 
Crown Copyright © 
Mr Justice Langley: 
This is an application for permission. The questions are whether the application made on May 8, 2000 is out of time under RSC Order 53 rule 4 and if it is whether the court should extend time....
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Samaroo, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 20, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 435


- 1 - 

Case No: CO/4973/1999 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 


Wednesday 20th December 2000 


B e f o r e : 

THE HON. MR JUSTICE THOMAS 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Nicholas Blake QC and Osama Daneshya (instructed by T Osmani) for the Applicants 
John Howell QC and Steven Kovats (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Respondent 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 











MR JUSTICE THOMAS: 

Introduction 

1. In April 1994 the applicant was found guilty of an offence of being concerned in the importation of 4 kg of cocaine and was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment and recommended for deportation. He was refused leave to appeal. A deportation order was made against him in April 1998. In November 2000, the Secretary of State made his final decision not to revoke the order. The applicant now applies for a declaration that his removal from the UK pursuant to a deportation order made on him would be a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and for the quashing of the decision of November 2000 not to revoke the deportation order. He contends that the Secretary of State misdirected himself as to the proper test to apply and that in any event the decision to deport was disproportionate to the effect it will have on his family. Before considering the arguments advanced it is necessary to set out the facts. 

The factual background 
2. The applicant is a citizen of Guyana and was born there in February 1948. He left Guyana for the USA in 1983; in June 1988, at the age of 40, he moved to the United Kingdom and was given leave to enter for 6 months as a visitor. 

3. Three months later, in September 1988 he married Jennifer Alitia Camacho. He had known her since his school days and had remained in communication with her. She had arrived in the United Kingdom in 1969 when she was 16; she had had three children from a previous relationship who were born respectively in 1972, 1976 and 1982. She had obtained British Citizenship in 1987. 

4. In March 1989, the applicant was given leave to remain in the United Kingdom for 12 months as a foreign spouse and on 15 March 1990 was granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a foreign spouse. On 18 April 1991, a son, Jonathan, was born to the applicant and his wife. 
5. In June 1993 the applicant was arrested at Heathrow Airport for being concerned with the importation of 4 kg of cocaine; its street value was then estimated to be £450,000. He was tried with other...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Cantabrica Coach Holdings Ltd v Vehicle Inspectorate, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 31, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 315

- 12 - 






IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CO/3235/1999 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
DIVISIONAL COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
The Strand 
London WC2A 2LL 

Friday, 31st March 2000 



Before: 

LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY 
and 
MR JUSTICE BUTTERFIELD 

_________________________ 


CANTABRICA COACH HOLDINGS LIMITED 
Appellant 

-v- 

VEHICLE INSPECTORATE 
Respondent 
_________________________ 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
_________________________ 

MR DAVID PHILLIPS Q.C. and MR RICHARD SERLIN (instructed by Messrs Wedlake Saint, 14 John Street, London WC1N 2EB) appeared on behalf of the Appellant. 

MR RICHARD PLENDER Q.C. (instructed by Foinette Quinn, 125-131 Queensway, Bletchley, Milton Keynes MK2 2DH) appeared on behalf of the Respondent. 
_________________________ 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 


MR JUSTICE BUTTERFIELD: 

General 

1. This is an appeal by way of case stated from a decision of Hertfordshire Justices sitting at Dacorum on 10 May 1999 whereby the appellant was convicted of failing to hand over to the respondent tachograph charts, contrary to Section 99(1)(bb) of the Transport Act 1968. The case raises the question of the proper construction of the relevant legislation. The resolution of that issue is of considerable practical importance to transport operators and to the Department of Transport alike. 

Summary of the Facts 
2. The appellant company, Cantabrica Coach Holdings Ltd, is a coach operator and the holder of a Public Services Vehicle Operators Licence and as such obliged to comply with Pa...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Alba Radio Ltd & Anor, R (On The Application Of) v Department Of Trade & Industry, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 30, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 423

1 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CO/4138/1999 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, 
WC2A 2LL 

Thursday 30th November 2000 
Before: 

NIGEL PLEMING QC 
(SITTING AS A DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT) 
----------------------------- 
BETWEEN: 

THE QUEEN 

and 

THE DEPARTMENT OF TRADE & INDUSTRY 
Respondent 

ex parte 

(1) ALBA RADIO LIMITED 
(2) PIFCO LIMITED 
Applicants 

----------------------------- 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 

----------------------------- 

Ms Claire Andrews, instructed by Reid Minty, appeared on behalf of the Claimants. 

Mr Jonathan Crow, instructed by the Treasury Solicitor, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. 
----------------------------- 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 
Judgment - 
1. The Applicants are importers and distributors of electrical goods. The product at the centre of these proceedings is the domestic toaster. There are two relevant types of toaster: hot-wall and cool-wall. The names speak for themselves. In recent years cool-wall toasters have emerged as a popular, safer product - at least to the extent that there is a considerably reduced chance of contact burns from that form of toaster. Cool-wall toasters have plastic walls and insulating material between the wall and the heating element. However, the older form of toaster, without such insulation and with metal sides, continues to be manufactured and sold in large numbers. As John Malin, Group Secretary of Alba plc, says at paragraph 2 of his witness statement - "...... a large number of customers continue to buy hot-wall toasters and there are millions of hot-wall toasters in use throughout the United Kingdom". Until recently, cool-wall toasters were more expensive. That is no longer the position. 
2. The supply onto the market of products such as electrical toasters is regulated, insofar as the safety of the products is concerned, by the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994, SI 1994/3260 ("the 1994 Regulations"). These Regulations were made under section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, and section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. The Regulations are intended to implement, in the United Kingdom, the requirements of Council Directive 73/23/EEC on the harmonization of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits ("the Low Voltage Directive"). 
3. It will be necessary in the course of this judgment to consider the terms of the Directive and the Regulations in some detail. 4. The Applicants commenced these jud...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
F & I Services Ltd, R (On The Application Of) v Customs & Excise, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 14, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 327




Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2A 2LL 

Friday 14th April 2000 
B e f o r e 

THE HON. MR JUSTICE CARNWATH 

R -V- COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE 
EX PARTE F & I SERVICES LTD 

AND 

F & I SERVICES LIMITED 
-V- 
COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE 

__________ 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
__________ 

Mr Michael Kent QC and Mr Rupert Anderson (instructed by Solicitors of HM Customs and Excise New Kings Beam House 22 Upper Ground London SE1 9PJ) appeared on behalf of HM Commissioners of Customs and Excise. 

Mr Roderick Cordara QC and Miss Perdita Cargill-Thompson (instructed by Messrs Hutchinson Mainprice & Co, 80- Ebury Street London SW1W 9QD appeared on behalf of F & I Services Ltd 
__________ 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 



The Hon. Mr Justice Carnwath: 

Part I - The Appeal 
Introduction 

I have before me an appeal from a decision of the VAT Tribunal (Mr Nicol and Mr Khan) dated 26th February 1999. (The related application for judicial review against the Commissioners of Customs and Excise will be considered in Part II.) The facts relevant to the appeal are fully set out in the Tribunal's decision and it is unnecessary to do more than summarise them. 
The appeal concerned a proposed scheme, whereby books of vouchers would be sold to car dealers for them to offer to purchasers of cars. Each voucher was for a specified sum which could be used towards the purchase of goods or services with a named retailer (for instance The Sock Shop or Harvester Restaurants), or of mechanical breakdown insurance provided through the car dealer. The total nominal value of the vouchers in each book was approximately £2,200. They were sold to car dealers for the price of £10.40 each, and by the car dealers to their customers at a nominal price of £300, included as part of the overall price of the car (there is a dispute whether it represents the true price for the vouchers). The scheme was devised by the appellants ("F&I") who had an established business relationship with a car dealer network. They arranged for a company called Entertainment Publications Ltd ("EP") to design and produce the voucher booklet and to contract with the retailers named in the vouchers. It was accepted by F&I that VAT was chargeable on the supply of books to the car-dealers, but it was hoped to avoid...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Director Of Public Prosecutions v Ramos, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 14, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 328

- 1 - 





Case No: CO/20/2000 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
COURT OF APPEAL (QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION) 
DIVISIONAL COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Friday 14th April 2000 

B e f o r e : 

LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY 
and 
MR JUSTICE BUTTERFIELD 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Richard Carey-Hughes (instructed by CPS for the appellant) 
John Skinner (Solicitor Advocate)(for the respondent) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 
Crown...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Camelot Group Plc, R (on the application of) v National Lottery Commission, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, September 21, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 391



- 1 - 
Case no: CO/3085/2000 

IN THE high court of justice 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
CROWn OFFICE 

Royal Courts of justice 
Strand, London, wc2a 2ll 

Thursday, 21 September, 2000 

Before: 

The honourable mr justice richards 

------------------- 

The Queen 
- and - 
The National Lottery Commission 
Respondent 
Ex parte 

Camelot Group plc 
Applicant 
____________________ 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 , Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
____________________ 

Mr D. PANNICK QC and MR T. DE LA MARE (instructed by Baker McKenzie & Co) appeared on behalf of the Applicant 
MR J. CROW and MR M HOSKINS (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Respondent 
MR N PLEMMING QC and MISS A FOSTER (instructed by Clifford Chance LLP) appeared on behalf of GTECH 
____________________ 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 
MR JUSTICE RICHARDS: 
The National Lottery is currently operated under a seven year licence by Camelot Group Plc ("Camelot"). The licence expires on 30 September 2001. Responsibility for the award of a new licence with effect from 1 October 2001 lies with the National Lottery Commission ("the Commission"). In 1999 the Commission established a competitive procedure for the award of the new licence and bids were subsequently received from Camelot and The People's Lottery ("TPL"). After a lengthy process of evaluation, involving an extension to the original timetable, the Commission announced on 23 August 2000 that it had decided (1) that neither of the bidders' plans met the statutory criteria for granting a licence, and the competitive procedure for the new licence was at an end, and (2) to proceed on the basis of a new procedure under which it would negotiate exclusively with TPL for one month. 
By these proceedings Camelot challenges the legality of the Commission's decision to operate the new procedure of exclusive negotiation with TPL. On 29 August Elias J granted Camelot permission to apply but refused interim relief. The case has now come before me to decide the substantive application. Camelot is represented by Mr David Pannick QC and the Commission by Mr Jonathan Crow. 
GTECH, the supplier of gaming software and terminals to Camelot, has been served with the application and has appeared, represented by Mr Nigel Pleming QC. Mr Crow, whilst not actively opposing GTECH being heard, raised a number of questions for the assistance of the court concerning GTECH's standing. He submitted that GTECH is not a person directly affected by the decision within CPR Schedule 1 RSC Order 53 r.5(3) and cannot be heard under r.9(1) because that applies only to persons desiring to be heard in opposition to an application; and, if the court has an inherent discretion to hear a person in support of an application, it is doubtful whether GTECH can add to what Camelot has to say and thereby assist the court. I have not found it necessary to decide whether GTECH is a person directly affected. In my view the court has a discretion to hear a person even where that person does not come within r.5(3) or r.9(1). Any doubt about that will be removed in any event by the new rules due to come into force on 2 October: CPR rule 54.17, as contained in the schedule to the Civil Procedure (Amendment No.4) Rules 2000, SI 2000 No.2092, confers an express power to allow any person to make representations at the hearing. I have exercised what I perceive to be my existing discretion in favour of GTECH. In doing so I have had particular regard to the impact of the Commission's decision on GTECH, even if such impact is indirect, and to the limited additional time required for consideration of Mr Pleming's commendably brief written and oral submissions. Should it ever become important, it remains open to GTECH to contend that it is entitled to appear anyway as a person directly affected. 
TPL was also served with the application but has not appeared. 
Statutory framework 
The governing statute is the National Lottery Etc. Act 1993, as amended by the National Lottery Act 1998. Section 1 of the 1993 Act creates the National Lottery and requires it to be promoted by a body licensed under section 5. Section 3A, which was introduced by the 1998 Act, establishes the Commission, to which are transferred the functions previously conferred or imposed on the Director General of the National Lottery. 
Section 4 lays down overriding duties of the Secretary of State and the Commission. Substituting references to the Commission for references to the Director General, its material provisions read: 
"(1) The Secretary of State and (subject to any directions that may be given by the Secretary of State under section 11) the Commission shall each exercise their functions under this Part in the manner they consider the most likely to secure - that the National Lottery is run, and every lotter...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Eastbourne Borough Council v Stirling & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 31, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 410

-- 1 -- 

Case No: CO/1508/2000 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr Nicholas Hall (instructed by Eastbourne Borough Council Legal Services Dept) appeared for the Appellant 

Mr James King-Smith (instructed by Mayo & Perkins, eastborne, BN21 4RP) appeared for the Respondents 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 




Lord Justice Pill: 

1. This is a prosecutor's appeal against a decision of Mr Kevin John Gladwell, acting stipendiary magistrate for the County of East Sus***, sitting at Eastbourne on 7 February 2000. The magistrate dismissed informations against Mr Charles William Stirling and Mr Robert John Morley alleging that each of them, being the driver of a private hire vehicle was found plying for hire with the vehicle on the west forecourt of Eastbourne railway station without a licence to ply for hire having previously been obtained under section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 ("the 1847 Act"), contrary to section 45 of the Act. Mr Stirling is alleged to have infringed on 28 May 1999 and Mr Morley on 29 May 1999. 
2. It is conceded that the respondents were not license...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
 
HM Attorney General v Flack, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 29, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 422

-- 1 -- 

Case No: CO/3416/1999 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:               020 7421 4040         020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Robert Jay QC (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Applicant 

William Hoskins (instructed by Langshaw Kyriacou) appeared for the Respondent 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 





Lord Justice Pill: 
1. This is an application, made with appropriate authority, under section 42(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981. A civil proceedings order is sought against Ian Richard Flack ("the respondent"). 
2. Section 42(1) provides that the court may make such an order if it is satisfied that the respondent has: 
"... habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground -- 
(a) instituted vexatious proceedings, whether in the High Court or any inferior court, and whether against the same person or against different persons; or (b) made vexatious applications in any civil proceedings whether in the High Court or any inferi...
[/align]
*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Parker v Director Of Public Prosecutions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 07, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 429



Case No: CO/3299/00 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
(QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION) 
DIVISIONAL COURT 
APPEAL BY WAY OF CASE STATED 
(Bristol Crown Court) 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Thursday 7 December 2000 

B e f o r e : 

LORD JUSTICE WALLER 

and 

MR JUSTICE SACHS 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr Paul Garlick QC; Mr Richard English (instructed by Gordon & Penney for the Appellant) 

Mr Neil Ford QC; Mr Mark Worsley (instructed by CPS Bristol for the Respondent) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 


Lord Justice Waller: 

Introduction This is an appeal by way of case stated from the Crown Court at Bristol which dismissed an appeal by Lee Christopher Parker from his conviction by the magistrates of an offence under section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The point raised is of importance. The section provides for it being an offence to drive a motor vehicle after consumption of so much alcohol that the proportion of alcohol in the breath, blood or urine exceeded the prescr...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Lowry v Honourable Society Of Middle Temple, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 06, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 427


VISITORS TO THE INNS OF COURT 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London WC2A 2LL 


Wednesday 6th December 2000 


B e f o r e: 


The Honourable Mr Justice Douglas Brown 
The Honourable Mr Justice Bennett 
The Honourable Mr Justice Hart 
Garrett T. Byrne Esq. 
and 
Mrs Monica Fisher 


Christopher John Lowry 
(Appellant Student) 

and 

The Honourable Society 
of the Middle Temple 
(Respondent) 


(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 



Mr Mukherjee Appeard on behalf of the Appellant 
Mr S Ford Appeared on behalf of the Respondent 



REASONS 
AS APPROVED BY THE COURT 

CROWN COPYWRIGHT© 



This is an appeal by Mr C...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Kingdom Of Belgium, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, February 15, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 293


- 2 - 

Case Nos: CO/236/2000 
CO/238/2000 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Tuesday 15 February 2000 
B e f o r e : 
LORD JUSTICE SIMON BROWN 
MR JUSTICE LATHAM 
and 
MR JUSTICE DYSON 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Mr J. Sumption QC & Mr P. Sales (instructed by Treasury Solicitor of London SW1) for the Respondent 
Mr R. Drabble QC & Miss Frances Webber (instructed by Messrs. Bindman & Partners, Solicitors of London W1X 8QF) for Amnesty International and 5 other applicants 
Mr N. Pleming QC, Mr P. Sands, Mr R. Singh & Miss H. Mountfield (instructed by Messrs Leigh Day & Co, Solicitors of London EC1M 4LB) for The Kingdom of Belgium 
Mr C. Nicholls QC & Mr J.B. Knowles (instructed by Messrs Kingsley Napley, Solicitors of London EC1M 4AJ) for Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, an interested party 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 


Lord Justice Simon Brown: 
Introduction 
It is sixteen months since Senator Pinochet was arrested. What should happen to him now? Should he be extradited to Spain to stand trial for the grave crimes of which he is accused? Or should he be allowed to return home to Chile? Many passionately hold one view, many the other. All, however, would surely agree upon one thing. It is high time the decision was taken: Senator Pinochet has spent quite long enough in this country. But the decision must, of course, be taken lawfully, and that is the issue now before us. 

This challenge, the latest in a whole succession of legal proceedings, is to the Secretary of State's proposed decision not to extradite Senator Pinochet to Spain on the ground that he is unfit to stand trial. More particularly at issue is the Secretary of State's entitlement to take such a decision (as he is "minded" to do) without first giving Spain and other requesting states sight of the medical report which is critical to it. Shorn of the applicants' more exorbitant demands - that they be allowed to examine Senator Pinochet themselves, that they have an opportunity to question the four specialists who prepared the Secretary of State's report, that the report be disseminated more widely than to the four requesting states - this is the essence of their complaint. What they ask is that the report now be disclosed to the requesting states so that at least they may comment upon its conclusions. 

There are two applicants before us, one the Kingdom of Belgium (Belgium), a requesting state, the other a group of six human rights organisations headed by Amnesty International (Amnesty). Their joint application for permission to move for judicial review came initially before Maurice Kay J who dismissed it on 31 January 2000: in the case of both applicants on the merits and in Amnesty's case on the additional ground that they lack "sufficient interest" i.e. standing. His judgment, right or wrong, is a model of clarity and thoroughness extending to forty-five pages of transcript. On the core issue he concluded: 
"... that it is simply not arguable that the non-disclosure of the medical report [to the requesting states] is unlawful, unfair or irrational." 

The application was renewed before us. During the course of the hearing we decided that it certainly merited permission and thereafter we proceeded to deal with it as a substantive motion. 

With that brief introduction let me now outline the facts as shortly as may be 

The Facts 
We shall assume our readers' familiarity with the earlier stages of this case: Senator Pinochet's arrest in London on 16 October 1998 pursuant to a Spanish warrant and the extensive subsequent litigation as to whether he enjoys state immunity. I can pick up the story with the final House of Lords decision on 24 March 1999 essentially to the effect that the offences alleged in Spain's request were "extradition crimes" only if committed after September 1988, and that Senator Pinochet had no immunity in respect of such crimes committed after December 1988. Following that decision, the Secretary of State on 14 April 1999 issued a fresh Authority to Proceed which Senator Pinochet thereafter unsuccessfully sought to challenge. 
The committal hearing before the Bow Street magistrate took place between 27 and 30 September 1999. On 8 October 1999 Senator Pinochet was committed on all charges to await the decision of the Secretary of State as to whether he should be extradited to Spain. A habeas corpus application was made on Senator Pinochet's behalf on 22 October 1999 which presently stands fixed for hear...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council v Booth, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 10, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 444,(2001) 3 LGLR 8,[2000] COD 338,(2000) 164 JP 485

SMITH BERNAL 

Neutral Citation Number: [2000] EWHC Admin 444 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 
DIVISIONAL COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
The Strand 
London 

Date: Wednesday 10 May 2000 


B e f o r e: 

THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES 
(Lord Bingham of Cornhill) 

and 

MR JUSTICE SILBER 

B E T W E E N: 
_______________ 
CITY OF BRADFORD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COUNCIL 
Appellant 

- v - 

ERIC WILSON BOOTH 
Respondent 
_______________ 
Computer Aided Transcription by 
Smith Bernal, 180 Fleet Street, London EC4 
Telephone No:    071-421 4040   071-421 4040 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
_______________ 
MR JOHN BLAIR-GOULD (instructed by the Director of Legal Services, City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council) appeared on behalf of 
THE APPELLANT 

THE RESPONDENT was not represented and did not appear 
_______________ J U D ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Mayne & Anor v Ministry Of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 13, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 368


- 10 - 





Case Nos: CO/786/00 & CO/750/00 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
(QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION) 
DIVISIONAL COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

13th July 2000 


B e f o r e : 

LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY 
and 
MR JUSTICE JACKSON 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Richard Perkoff for Quentin Mayne (instructed by Clyde & Co, Guildford) and Malcolm Mr. G. Foster for Chitty Wholesale (instructed by Charles Russell Baldocks, Guildford) 
Christopher Vajda QC and Mary McCarthy (instructed by the Legal Department of MAFF for the respondents) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 







Lord Justice Kennedy: This is a defendants' appeal by way of Case Stated from a decision of Mr Roger Davies, a Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, sitting at Staines who in November 1999 considered informations which alleged that the appellants on various dates between October 1995 and February 1996 were concerned in the export of nine lorry loads of beef from the United Kingdom to France without the meat being accompanied by valid Export Health certificates contrary to Regulation 6 of the Products of Animal Origi...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Russell & Anor, R (On The Application Of) v HMP Frankland, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 10, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 365





Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2A 2LL 
10th July 2000 

B e f o r e 

MR JUSTICE LIGHTMAN 

BETWEEN: 

THE QUEEN 

and 

GOVERNOR OF HMP FRANKLAND 
Respondent 

ex parte 

(1) ANDREW RUSSELL 
(2) PERRY WHARRIE 
Applicant 
_________ 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
________ 

Ms Phillippa Kaufmann (Instructed by Messrs Bhatt Murphy, 23 Pitfield Street, London N1 6HB) appeared on behalf of the Applicant. 
Mr Steven Kovats (Instructed by the Treasury Solicitor, Queen Anne's Chambers, 28 Broadway, London SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. 


Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 
Crown Copyright © 




INTRODUCTION 1. This is an application made pursuant to permission granted by me on the 14th January 2000 for an order quashing the policy ("the Policy") of the Governor ("the Governor") of HMP Frankland ("the Prison") in respect of the provision of food to prisoners placed in the segregation unit of the Prison ("the Unit") who refuse to wear prison clothes. The Governor provides prisoners with three meals a day at the central servery, but he has made it a rule that prisoners placed in the Unit who refuse to wear prison clothes shall not be allowed to collect their meals from the servery. If the Governor obtains the necessary authority, the segregation of a prisoner in the Unit can be continued month by month for an indefinite period. The Applicants were prisoners at the Prison who, when placed in the Unit, were subjected to the Policy. They have since been transferred to other prisons, but may at any time be transferred back to the Prison. They seek to challenge its legality and a declaration that ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Murray, R (on the application of) v Derbyshire County Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 06, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 393



Case No: CO/1493/2000 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 


Date: 6th October 2000 



B e f o r e : 

MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY 


Ex parte David Murray 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr Wolfe (instructed by Public Interest Lawyers) for the Applicant) 
Mr Evans(instructed by David W. Tysoe, Solicitor and County Secretary) for the Respondent) 
Mr Katkowski QC (instructed by Nabarro Nathanson) representing Fitzwise Limited 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


Judgment 
As Aproved by the Court 

Crown Copyright 

Mr Justice Maurice Kay: 1 Derbyshire County Council ("the Council") is the local planning authority in relation to waste disposal facilities in its area. There is an established landfill site known as the Hall Lane Site close to the village of Barrow Hill which is just outside the town of Staveley. On 20 March 2000 the Council, through its Environmental Services Planning Development Subcommittee, granted planning permission for an extension in the use and duration of the Hall Lane Site. This involved a larger area, the extraction of 120,000 tonnes of clay, the incidental extraction of 1000 tonnes of coal and the provision of a fourth waste cell with an additional 650,000 tonnes of waste disposal capacity and extending the life of the landfill operation by about one year to December 2005. The Applicant lives in Barrow Hill. He and other local residents objected to the planning application on environmental and amenity grounds. Following the grant of planning permission, he now seeks to challenge that decision by way of an application for judicial review. The Respondent to the application is the Counci
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Beresford, R (on the application of) v City Of Sunderland, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 14, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 418

1 

Case no: CO/2064/2000 

IN THE high court of justice 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 

Royal Courts of justice 
Strand, London, 
wc2a 2ll 

Tuesday, 14 November, 2000 

Before: 

MRS JUSTICE SMITH 

------------------- 

The Queen 
-v- 
THE CITY OF SUNDERLAND 
Appellant 
ex parte 
Respondent 
PAMELA BERESFORD 
____________________ 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
____________________ 

Mr D. Edwards (instructed by Southern Stewart & Walker 157 Prince Edward Road, South Shields, Tyne & Wear) for the Appellant 

Mr P. Petchey (instructed by Mr. Colin Langley, City of Sunderland, Civic Centre, Sunderland SR2 7DN) for the Respondent 

____________________ 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 



Mrs Justice Smith: 

Introduction. 

1. This is an application for judicial review, brought by permission of Moses J, of the decision of the Licensing Committee of the Council of the City of Sunderland on 27th April 2000, when they refused the application of Mrs Pamela Beresford and 3 other residents of Washington, Tyne and Wear, to have registered land known as the `Sports Arena' at Washington, as a town or village green pursuant to section 13 of the Commons Registration Act 1965 (the Act). 

2. The Act provides a statutory framework for the registration of common land and town and village greens. Under section 2, local authorities were appointed as registration authorities for the purposes of the Act and by section 3 are required to maintain a register of common land and town and village greens within their area. Washington is within the City of Sunderland. 
3. The Act and regulations made thereunder provided that all common land and town and village greens were to be registered within 5 years. Any land not so registered by 2nd January 1970 was deemed not to be common land or a town or village green. However, by Section 13 of the Act, the register could be amended to include any land which became common land or a town or village green after that date. An application to amend the register was to be made to the registration authority. Any person aggrieved by the inclusion of any la...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Ratchev, R (on the application of) v Government Of Bulgaria & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 17, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 343




Case No: CO 2018/99 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (CROWN OFFICE LIST) 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Wednesday 17th May 2000 

B e f o r e : 

LORD JUSTICE HENRY 
and 
MR JUSTICE ALLIOTT 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Ms Helen Malcolm (instructed for the Applicant) 
James Lewis Esq (instructed for the Respondent) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 






Lord Justice Henry: 
Mr Ratchev, now a British subject through marriage and residence, challenges, under Section 6(2) of the Extradition Act, 1989, his committal for e
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Kaymak, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Home Department & Ors, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 13, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 431

1 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CO/961/2000 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
(ADMINISTRATIVE COURT) 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Wednesday, 13th December 2000 
B e f o r e: 

MR JACK BEATSON QC 

- - - - - - - 
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF 

HASAN KAYMAK 

-v- 

(1) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT 
(2) THE IMMIGRATION APPEALLATE AUTHORITY 
(3) THE IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL 

- - - - - - 
(Computer-aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited 
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG 
Telephone No: 0171-421 4040/0171-404 1400 
Fax No: 0171-831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 

- - - - - - 
DR S JUSS (instructed by Sheikh & Co, 208 Seven Sisters Road, Finsbury Park, London N4 3NX) appeared on behalf of the Applicant. 

MISS J ANDERSON (instructed by Treasury Solicitor, Queen Anne's Chambers, 28 Broadway, London SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the Respondents. 


Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 
Crown Copyright © 





JACK BEATSON Q.C.:- In this application for judicial review Mr Hasan Kaymak, an Alevi Kurd aged 31 who is a Turkish citizen, seeks certiorari to quash the decisions of Miss Lingard, the Special Adjudicator promulgated on 3 November 1999 t...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Joseph, R (on the application of) v Director Of Public Prosecutions & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 21, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 439

Case No: CO/1224/2000 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT LIST 
DIVISIONAL COURT 
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION 
FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Thursday 21st December 2000 

B e f o r e : 

LORD JUSTICE WALLER 

and 

SIR EDWIN JOWITT 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr Hugh Southey (Instructed by Deighton Guedalla, 30 Islington Green , London, N1 8DU)appeared for the Appellant 
Mr John McGuinness (Instructed by CPS, London)appeared for the Respondent 
Mr Julian Knowles (appeared for the Intervener) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 


Lord Justice Waller: 1. The applicant Andre Joseph seeks to review the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions da...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
MRB Insurance Brokers Ltd, R (on the application of) v Kettering Magistrates' Court, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 04, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 320

- 1 - 


Case No: CO/1721/99 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
DIVISIONAL COURT 
CROWM OFFICE LIST 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Tuesday 4 April 2000 

B e f o r e : 

LORD JUSTICE SCHIEMANN 
MR JUSTICE DOUGLAS BROWN 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
FREDERICK PHILPOTT & IAIN MACDONALD (instructed by Messrs. Romain Coleman & Co. for the Applicant) 
KARL H. SCHOLTZ (instructed by Legal Servcies, Northampton County Council for the PROSECUTOR) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 
Crown Copyright © 
[/align]*








...

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Howell, R (on the application of) v Planning Inspectorate Cardiff, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 15, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 355


- 10 - 



Case No: CO/3850/1999 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
CROWN OFFICE LIST - IN THE MATTER OF 
AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Thursday 15 June 2000 

B e f o r e : 

LORD JUSTICE ROCH 




---------------------------------- 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
---------------------------------- 
Geraint Jones (instructed by Messrs Lewis Lewis, Carmarthenshire, for the Applicant) 
Philip Marshall (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor for the Respondent) 

Counsel for judgment: Mr. A Scott-Gall For the Applicant 
Ms. E Gow For the Respondent 
---------------------------------- 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 






Lord Justice Roch 
1. This is an application for an order of certiorari to remove into the High Court and quash a decision of a planning inspector, Mr R. F. Shercliff, contained in a decision letter dated 10 June 1999. That decision was to confirm the proposal of the former Dyfed County Council, to reclassify a public way formerly classified as a road used as a public path under the Public Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, as a footpath pursuant to the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981. 
2. The ground upon which relief is sought is that the Inspector, having heard evidence of vehicular use of the relevant way, summarised in paragraph 48 of his decision letter, directed himself that the majority of the evidence of use of the way by vehicles referred to activity after December, 1930, and was evidence that he, the Inspector, could not take into account. The Inspector conclude...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Mellor, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 31, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 385


- 1 - 



Case No: 561/99 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 


Date: 31 July 2000 


B e f o r e : 

THE HON MR JUSTICE FORBES 



- - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - 
Mr David Pannick QC and Miss Flo Krause (instructed by A S Law) appeared for the Applicant 
Miss Dinah Rose (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Respondents 



Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 





Mr Justice FORBES: 
1. Introduction In these proceedings the Applicant ("Mr Mellor") seeks judicial review of the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department ("the Secretary of State"), made on 3 November 1998 and communicated to Mr Mellor on 5 November 1998, not to allow his application for artificial insemination. 

2. The Background Facts Mr Mellor was born on 4 April 1971 and is now aged 29. In February 1995 he was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The tariff element of Mr Mellor's life sentence (Mr Mellor's "tariff") is due to expire in 2006, by which time he will be 35 years old. 

3. In January 1997, whilst Mr Mellor was a prisoner at HMP Gartree, he met and formed a relationship with Tracey McColl, who was a member of the prison staff there at the time. On 17 March 1997, Miss McColl resigned from the Prison Service. On 21 April 1997 Mr Mellor was transferred to HMP Winchester, moving from there to HMP Long Lartin on 14 May 1997 and from there to HMP Nottingham on 11 October 1999. HMP Nottingham is a Category B local prison, with a wing for prisoners serving life sentences. Mr Mellor's understanding is that his next progressive move will be to a Category C prison: see paragraph 2 of his affidavit dated 27 May 2000. 

4. On 22 July 1997, Mr Mellor and Miss McColl were married in prison. Mrs Mellor is now aged 25 and will be 31 years old when Mr Mellor's tariff expires in February 2006. In 2004, when it is possible that Mr Mellor may be granted temporary release (as to which, see paragraphs 7 and 8 below), Mrs Mellor will be 28/29 years old. 

5. The first formal review of Mr Mellor's case by the Parole Board will take place in late 2002, 3 1/2 years prior to the expiry of his tariff, provided he has spent over 12 months as a Category C prisoner. Otherwise, his case will first be reviewed by the Parole Board in February 2003, 3 years prior to expiry of his tariff. Mr Mellor has been advised that once he reaches a Category C prison as a life prisoner, he can expect to spend 2 to 3 years in Category C conditions, if all goes well. This would then be followed by 2 years in Category D conditions (ie open conditions), followed by release on licence: see paragraph 3 of his affidavit dated 27 May 2000. 

6. It will be open to the Parole Board, when reviewing Mr Mellor's case, to recommend that he should be transferred to open conditions. Such a recommendation would be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State and would only be made if the Parole Board were satisfied that Mr Mellor had made sufficient progress in addressing his offending behaviour to minimise the risk of reoffending, that he would benefit from open conditions and that he could be trusted not to abscond or to commit further offences whilst inside or outside prison. 
7. After 6 months in open ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Vallaj, R (on the application of) v Special Adjudicator, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 21, 2000, [2001] INLR 455,[2002] Imm AR 16,[2000] EWHC Admin 438

1 

Case No: CO/2738/2000 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, 
WC2A 2LL 
Thursday 21st December 2000 

B e f o r e : 

THE HON MR JUSTICE DYSON 
---------------------------------- 
---------------------------------- 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
---------------------------------- 
Mr I. MacDonald QC and Ms S. Harrison (instructed by Messrs A.S.Law for the Applicant) 
Mr S. Catchpole (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor for the Respondent) 
---------------------------------- 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 
Crown Copyright © 





Mr Justice Dyson: 

Introduction 

1. The Claimant is a Kosovar Albanian and a national of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ("FRY"). He applied for asylum in the United Kingdom on the grounds that he had a well-founded fear of persecution in the FRY. The basis of his claim was that he had been beaten up on two occasions by 4 or 5 Serbs who lived in his village in Kosovo. He also claimed that he had been living in a tent because his house had been burnt down, and had decided to leave Kosovo in fear of his life in late March 2000. 

2. In a letter dated 12 April 2000, the Secretary of State refused the application. So far as material, the letter stated: 

"6. The Secretary of State considers that you could have attempted to seek redress through the proper authorities before seeking international protection. While he is aware that there are security difficulties in Kosovo, which the UN administration is seeking to address, he has concluded that you would not be at risk of persecution for a Convention reason there. 

7. Further doubts as to your alleged fear of persecution can be drawn from the fact that you did not leave Kosovo until two months after the second alleged attack on you by the Serbs. The Secretary of State holds the view that if your fear of persecution by the Serbs was genuine you would have left Kosovo at the earliest opportunity and the fact that you did not casts doubt on the veracity and credibility of your claim. 

8. With regard to the letter received from you r representative on 11th April 2000, the Secretary of State would comment as follows: 

The letter claimed that the attacks by Serbs were carried out in an organised manner in order to intimidate you. However, the Secretary of State considers that there is no suggestion that the two claimed attacks were more than random criminality, particularly as the incidents were two or three months apart. 
The letter claimed that it is "common knowledge that ethnic Albanians are discriminated against and persecuted by the Serbs". However, the Secretary of State considers that following the Kosovar war such discrimination no longer applies, and it is considered that Serbs are, in fact, vulnerable in Kosovo because of revenge attacks by ethnic Albanians. 
9. In the l...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Akdogan, R (on the application of) v Special Adjudicator Of Immigration Appellate Authority, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, February 11, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 289


- 1 - 


Case No: CO/1357/99 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
(CROWN OFFICE LIST) 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 


Friday, 11 February 2000 

B e f o r e : 

THE HON MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY 



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Matthew Feldman (instructed by Messrs Christmas & Sheehan for the Applicant) 
Lisa Giovannetti (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor for the Respondent) 


Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 
Friday, 11 February 2000 
JUDGMENT Mr Justice Maurice Kay: This Applicant has permission to apply for judicial review of a decision by a Special Adjudicator, Mr. G Denson, made on 13 January 1999 to adjourn the Applicant's appeal hearing and to transfer it to another Adjudicator. The Applicant is an asylum seeker from Turkey. He is an Alevi Kurd. He is 29 years of age. I do not know all the details of his claim for asylum but it is based upon the involvement of his family and of himself in Kurdish politics. It is said that two of his relatives have been shot for their political activities, one in 1969, the other in 1...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Victor Chandler International v Customs & Excise & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, February 29, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 299










HC 999 02539 
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 


Before: THE VICE-CHANCELLOR: The Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Scott 
The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Chadwick 
The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Buxton 

B E T W E E N 


(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 


Mr P. Sales and Mr T. Pitt-Payne instructed by H.M. Customs & Excise for the Appellant 
Mr D. Oliver QC and Mr M. Cunningham instructed by Goldsmiths, London SW1Y 6JF for the Respondent 




Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 












Tuesday 29th February 2000 
The Vice-Chancellor :- 
1. This appeal raises a narrow question of construction of section 9(1)(b) of the Betting and Gaming Act 1981. The 1981 Act is a consolidating Act which reproduces previously enacted statutory provisions. Under section 1(1)(a) of the Act betting duty is chargeable on any bet which is not an on-course bet and which "is made with a bookmaker in the United Kingdom". There are other circumstances set out in the sub-section in which betting duty becomes chargeable but I need not refer to them. Under section 2(1) the betting duty has to be paid "in the case of a bet with a bookmaker ..., by the bookmaker". Naturally enough bookmakers make arrangements under which the real cost of the betting duty for which they become liable is borne by the punters who place bets with them. 

2. Betting duty is an excise duty and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise are responsible for its collection. 

3. Section 9 of the Act is entitled "Prohibitions for protection of revenue". It reproduces provisions which had their origin in the earlier legislation. The purpose of section 9, and its statutory predecessors, is to prevent bookmakers who are based off-shore, and who are therefore not chargeable under section 1(1)(a), from soliciting bets from people within the United Kingdom. 

4. Section 9(1) provides as follows:- 
"(1) Any person who - 
(a) conducts in the United Kingdom any business or agency for the negotiation, receipt or transmission of bets to which this section applies, or (b) knowingly issues, circulates or distributes in the United Kingdom, or has in his possession for that purpose, any advertisement or other document inviting or otherwise relating to the ma...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
KL v Worcestershire County Council & Ors, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 15, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 303

- 13 - 



Case No: 1999/1252/C 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
COURT OF APPEAL QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST (CARNWATH J) 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Wednesday 15 March 2000 

B e f o r e : 

LORD CHIEF JUSTICE 
Of England & Wales (Lord Birmingham of Cornhill) 
LORD JUSTICE PILL 
and 
LADY JUSTICE HALE 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Richard Gordon QC & Nicholas Bowen (instructed by Rust Moss & Co., 48 Blackburn Road, Accrington, Lancashire, BB5 1LE) for the appellant 
David Wolfe (Mr J Moffatt 15.3.00)(instructed by Simon Mallinson, Head of Legal Services, Worcestershire County Council, County Hall, Spetchley Road, Worcestershire, WR5 2NP) for the respondents 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 


Lady Justice Hale: 

1. This is the judgment of the Court. 

Facts 2. K was born on 1 June 1990. She has cerebral palsy, which affects her fine and gross motor movements. She also has Turner's Syndrome which results in small stature. Because of these physical disabilities she has special educational needs. Her mother wishes her to go to A Manor School which is a small private special school. The Special Educational Needs Tribunal has decided that she should go to a mainstream day school which is able to provi...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Montana, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 23, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 421


Case No: C/2000/0386 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
COURT OF APPEAL (QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION) 
ON APPEAL FROM THE HON. MR. JUSTICE TURNER 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Thursday 23 November 2000. 

B e f o r e : 

LORD JUSTICE SCHIEMANN 
LORD JUSTICE TUCKEY 
and 
SIR SWINTON THOMAS 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

- - - - - - - - 

(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Miss Dinah Rose (instructed by Liberty) for the Appellant 
Robin Tam (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor London SW1H 9JS) for the Respondent 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 

Introduction. This is the judgment of the court. The case raises the question whether the policy adopted by the Secretary of State for exercising a statutory discretion to register a child as a British citizen is unlawful. It arises on appeal from Turner J. who decided that it was not when dismissing the Appellant, Mario Montana's application for judicial review of the Secretary of State's refusal to register his son Julian as a British citizen. The Judge also rejected the Appellant's contention that the Secretary of State's decisi...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Friend & National Assembly For Wales Newport Borough Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 18, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 332

28 

Case No: CO/2265/99 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
SITTING AT SWANSEA CROWN COURT 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, LONDON, WC2A 2LL 

Tuesday 18th April 2000 

Before: 

THE HON.MR JUSTICE TURNER 
----------------------------- 

DENNIS FRIEND 

And 

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES 

NEWPORT BOROUGH COUNCIL 

----------------------------- 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No: 0171 421 4040 , Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
----------------------------- 
Mr Rupert Warren (instructed by Miss J. Johnstone Rubin Lewis O'Brian, Solicitors, South Wales NP44 1PL for the Applicant) 
Mr David Forsdick (instructed by Treasury Solicitors for the 1st Respondent) 
2nd Respondent not represented 
----------------------------- 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 

Mr Justice TURNER: 
1. This is a statutory appeal from the decision of an inspector who dismissed three appeals which had been brought before him by the applicant. Those appeals were brought against the service of three enforcement notices served on the applicant by the respondent Borough Council in respect of what was alleged to have been three breaches of planning control by the applicant as the owner of land and buildings at Trinco House, Penhow, Newport. The three notices have throughout been referred to as A, B and C and related to separate aspects of the applicant's conduct on his land. Thus: 
1. Notice A, alleged the change of use to a dwelling house without planning permission of a building formerly used for pleasure purposes; 
2. Notice B, alleged the erection of a building and lamp standards, without planning permission; 
3. Notice C, alleged a change of use of agricultural land to use as residential curtilage. 
2. The proceedings had commenced as the result of the service by the Newport Borough Council ('the Council') of three enforcement notices which not only had required discontinuance of the non-permitted use but also reinstatement of the three separate pieces of, what was claimed to have been, unauthorised development. The applicant appealed against all three notices and relied upo...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Isle Of Wight Council, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Trade & Industry & Ors, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 07, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 322

2 






IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Case no: CO/4077/99 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Friday 7 April 2000 
Before: 
The Hon Mr Justice Newman 
__________________________________ 


THE QUEEN 

- and - 

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY 
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS 
THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD 
THE MINISTRY OF CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT 

Respondents 
- ex parte - 

THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL 
Applicant 
---------------- 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
---------------- 
Jeremy Lever QC and Hugh Mercer instructed by Sharpe Pritchard, Solicitors for the Applicant 
Christopher Vajda QC and Stephen Morris instructed by The Treasury Solicitor, for the Respondents 
---------------- 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 







The Hon Mr Justice Newman 


The applicant, the Isle of Wight Council, seeks judicial review of two measures taken by the respondents containing proposals by the United Kingdom Government (the Government) to the Commission of the European Communities (the Commission) for the classification of areas within the United Kingdom for the purposes of 

(a) the grant by the Government of a form of national state aid known as regional selective assistance (RSA), ("the Assisted Areas Proposal") and 
(b) the grant by the Commission of assistance, also made available on a regional basis, from the structural funds of the European Community (EC) ("the Objective 2 Proposals"). 

The proposals were published in the name of the Departments for which each of the Respondent members are responsible. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry acted as the lead minister in submitting the proposals to the Commission. 

The Government's proposals for RSA were contained in "the Government's proposals for new assisted areas dated l5 July l999. The Government's proposals for structural funds were contained in the document entitled "EU Structural Funds: the UK Government's Proposals for New Objective 2 areas" dated 8 October l999. 

THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR RSA 
The Government exercises power in connection with RSA pursuant to the Industrial Development Act l982 (the Act) and in particular Section l, which provides 

"S.1(1) For the purposes of this Act, and any other enactment referring to the development areas or intermediate areas under this Act, the Secretary of State may by order specify any area of Great Britain as - 

(a) a development area, or 
(b) an intermediate area." 
(2) .......... 
(3) .......... 
(4) .......... 
The legal framework of the Act for the provision of financial assistance for industry in assisted areas is set out in Sections 7 and 8. Section 7 provides: 

"S.7: 
(1) For the purposes set out in the following provisions of this section the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, provide financial assistance where, in his opinion - 

(a) the financial assistance is likely to provide, maintain or safeguard employment in any part of the assisted area; and 

(b) the undertakings for which the assistance is provided are or will be wholly or mainly in the assisted areas. 

(2) The purposes mentioned in sub-section l above are - 

(a) to promote the development or modernisation of an industry; 

(b) to promote the efficiency of an industry; 
(c) to create, expand or sustain productive capacity in ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
M, R (on the application of) v Ashworth Special Hospital Trust, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, September 28, 2000, [2000] EWHC 644 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL 
CO/4563/1999 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
(THE CROWN OFFICE LIST) 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Thursday 28th September 2000 

B e f o r e: 

MR JUSTICE JACKSON 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

REGINA 

-v- 

THE ASHWORTH SPECIAL HOSPITAL TRUST 

EX PARTE COLONEL M 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Computer-aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited 
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG 
Telephone No: 0171-421 4040/0171-404 1400 
Fax No: 0171-831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

MISS FENELLA MORRIS (instructed by HOGANS SOLICITORS, 10 STATION ROAD, RAINHILL, MERSEYSIDE, L35 OLP) appeared on behalf of the Applicant. 

MR GREGORY CHAMBERS (instructed by REID MINTY SOLICITORS, LONDON WIX 9HZ) appeared on behalf of the Respondents. 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
J U D G M E N T1. MR JUSTICE JACKSON: This judgment is in four parts, namely: part 1, introduction; part 2, the background facts and statutory context; part 3, the four challenges to Ashworth Hospital's Seclusion Procedure; part 4, conclusion. 
Part 1: Introduction 2. The applicant is a patient detained at Ashworth Special Hospital pursuant to section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The applicant has been at Ashworth Hospital since March 1994. From time to time the applicant has been placed in seclusion at Ashworth Hospital as a result of behavioural problem...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Pelling, R (on the application of) v Bow County Court, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 19, 2000, [2001] ACD 1,[2000] EWHC 636 (Admin),[2001] UKHRR 165

SMITH BERNAL 
CO/4774/1999 
BAILII Citation Number: [2000] EWHC 636 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London WC2 

Date: Thursday, 19th October 2000 

B e f o r e: 

LORD JUSTICE BUXTON 

and 

MR JUSTICE PENRY-DAVEY 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

THE QUEEN 

ON THE APPLICATION OF 

MICHAEL JOHN PELLING 


-v- 


BOW COUNTY COURT 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Computer-aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes 
of Smith Bernal Reporting Limited 
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HD 
Telephone No: 0207-421 4040/0207-404 1400 
Fax No: 0207-831 8838 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

The applicant appeared in person 

MESSRS P SALES & A CHOUDHURY (instructed by Treasury Solicitors, Queen Anne's Chambers, 28 Broadway, London, SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the respondent 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
J U D G M E N T 
JUDGMENT 
1. LORD JUSTICE BUXTON: In these proceedings for judicial review the applicant, Dr Pelling, principally seeks to have declared ultra vires certain rules in the Civil Procedure Rules and certain parts of the Practice Directions issued under those rules. Dr Pelling's attention was drawn to the matters of which he complains by certain practices at the Bow County Court, but it is important to note that the relief that he seeks in these proceedings is directed at the generality of the rules and practice directions underlying those practices and not, save in one respect, which I shall come at the end of this judgment, at the practices at that court themselves. 
2. There are a number of preliminary matters that I must deal with before I come to the substance of the case: (1) The case was estimated to last for one day. That was an estimate that even if not made by Dr Pelling, he concurred in to the extent of recording it at the beginning of his skeleton argument, and the case was accordingly listed and other cases today equally listed on that assumption. The case was listed to come on at 12 noon yesterday and was called on at that hour. Dr Pelling had not then arrived in court, owing to transport difficulties which he properly explained to us later, but was able to commence his submissions at 12.30. At 4.15 yesterday we told him that the court would sit today at 10 o'clock but that he must conclude his oral submissions by 11.30; that is to say, allowing him over four hours of court time to address us. Dr Pelling indicated that that would cause him difficulty. However, we bore...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
C, R (on the application of) v London South and South West Region, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 21, 2000, [2000] EWHC 637 (Admin)

CO/4092/2000 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2A 2LL 

Thursday 21st December 2000 

B e f o r e 

MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

T H E Q U E E N 

ON THE APPLICATION OF 

C 
Claimant 

v. 

MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW TRIBUNAL 
LONDON SOUTH AND SOUTH WEST REGION 
Defendant 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Computer Aided Transcription of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG Tel:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

MR STEPHEN SIMBLET (instructed by Jacqueline Everett & Co, London SW16 6JF) appeared on behalf of the Claimant. 
MR DAVID FORSDICK (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Defendant. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

J U D G M E N TSMITH BERNAL 
1. MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: The single issue raised in this application is whether the Mental Health Review Tribunal (``the tribunal'') is in breach of Article 5(4) of the European Convention of Human Rights (``ECHR''), which provides: 
``Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention should be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.'' 2. The claimant, to whom I shall refer as C, was detained under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (``the 1983 Act'') on 16th October 2000. He immediately applied to the tribunal for discharge and in accordance with current practice his case was listed for hearing eight weeks later, on 11th December. His submission is that eight weeks is too long a period and is contrary to Article 5(4), which requires the lawfulness of his decision to be decided speed...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Metropolitan Borough of Wirral, R (on the application of) v The Chief Schools Adjudicator, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 14, 2000, [2000] EWHC 635 (Admin),[2001] ELR 574

SMITH BERNAL 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
CO/3642/2000 
BAILII Citation Number: [2000] EWHC 635 (Admin) 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
(ADMINISTRATIVE COURT) 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Date: Thursday, 14th December 2000 
B e f o r e: 

MR JUSTICE OUSELEY 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF 

METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF WIRRAL 

-v- 

THE CHIEF SCHOOLS ADJUDICATOR 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Computer-aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited 
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG 
Telephone No: 0171-421 4040/0171-404 1400 
Fax No: 0171-831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
MR MR C BEAR and MR N GIFFIN (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard, as Agents for PG Manson, Borough Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Applicant. 

MR C LEWIS and MR T PITT-PAYNE (instructed by Treasury Solicitor, Queen Anne's Chambers, 28 Broadway, London SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the Respondent. 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
J U D G M E N T 
1. MR JUSTICE OUSELEY: Wirral Borough Metropolitan Council is the claimant in these proceedings and is the local education authority for the Wirral. Within its area, state sector secondary education is provided at six grammar schools and 17 all-ability schools. The grammar schools account for approximately 20 per cent of the total number of places. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (``Wirral''), as the admissions authority, determines admission arrangements for two of the grammar schools which are community schools and for the 14 community all-ability schools. Two of the other grammar schools are foundation schools (ex-grant maintained) and set their own admission arrangements. However, the community and foundation grammar schools' admissions are managed jointly by Wirral. The remaining two grammar schools, as well as three of the all-ability schools, are Roman Catholic aided schools which set and conduct their own admissions arrangements. However, by agreement, the Authority at present exercises a co-ordinating role in relation to admissions for all of these schools. 2. For admissions for the academic year starting 2001, Wirral determined that its approach would be that selection tests for grammar schools would precede the expression by parents of their preference as to the state sector secondary school for their children. This approach was agreed with those with whom Wirral co-ordinates arrangements and those whose admission arrangments it manages. The purpose of doing things that way round was to enable parents to have a much better idea of whether their children would obtain a grammar school place when they first expressed their preference for a grammar school. Armed with that knowledge, a parent of a child who had failed to obtain the requisite standard for entry to the grammar school could select as his or her first preference one of the six over-subscribed, more popular state all-ability schools. Without that knowledge, a parent of a child who had chosen a grammar school as fi...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Parkyn, R (on the application of) v Restormel Borough Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 19, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 344

1 


Case no: CO/1406/2000 & CO/1425/2000 
IN THE high court of justice 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
CROWn OFFICE 

Royal Courts of justice 
Strand, London, wc2a 2ll 

Wednesday 13th September 2000 
Before: 

Mr George bartlett qc 
(Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Queen's Bench Division) 
------------------- 

Regina 
V 
Restormel Borough Council ex parte Parkyn 

-and- 

Regina 
V 
Restormel Borough council ex parte Corbett 
____________________ 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
____________________ 
mr c katKowski qc and Mr j Maurici (Instructed by Sharpe Pritchard, London, WC1V 6HG) appeared on behalf of the Applicant Parkyn 

mr j LittoN (Instructed by Russel Jones & Walker Solicitors London, WC1X 8NH) appeared on behalf of the Applicant Corbett 

mr g roots qc and Mr r taylor (Instructed by Stephens & Scown St Austell, Cornwall, PL25 5DR) appeared on behalf of Land and Property Limited, an interested party 
____________________ 

Judgment 
(As Approval by the Court) 

Crown Copyright 


Mr George Bartlett QC: 
The claimants in this case, both councillors of Restormel Borough Council, seek by judicial review to challenge four decisions of the council as local planning authority. Councillor Parkyn does so on behalf of the council itself, Councillor Corbett in a private capacity. Three of the decisions are grants of planning permission, and the fourth relates to an agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, on parts of the Victoria Business Park at Roche in Cornwall. The purpose of the challenge is to relieve the council of the obligation to pay compensation to the landowners in consequence of an order made by the Secretary of the State for the Environment Transport and the Regions modifying one of the permissions. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted to Councillor Parkyn by Sullivan J on 19 May 2000 and to Councillor Corbett by Forbes J on 30 June 2000 after Collins J had refused permission on paper. 
Victoria Business Park 
Victoria Business Park comprises about 20 hectares of land lying in otherwise generally open country on the south side of the A30 trunk road 3 kilometres west of the Bodmin bypass and 7 kilometres to the east of the Indian Queens bypass on a single carriageway section of the road. The village of Roche lies about 1.5 kilometres to the south. The nearest town are Bodmin, St Austell, Newquay and Truro. The Business Park has been developed on land formerly known as Penstraze Farm, which was bought by a company called ML Real Estate Ltd in, I think, the 1970s. It has been developed in a piecemeal manner from then onwards. Initially a number of planning permissions were granted for the erection of factory/workshop units. Then in October 1986 permissions were granted for retail (non-food bulky items) and warehouse development on part of the site. It appears that the retail element (50,000 sq ft) was included to give a high value use to make the site more attractive to developers. Overall there have been numerous applications and permissions covering B1 (business), B2 (general industrial) and B8 (storage/distribution) as well as retail and other uses. Four of these permissions (including the three which are the subject of these proceedings) are of particular relevance. 
The planning permissions 
On 12 November 1990 permission ("the 1990 permission") was granted to ML Real Estates Ltd for the "Erection of non-food retail units with associated car parking, etc.". The amount of retail floor space was 195,000 square feet. The site was a roughly square area which formed the central area of the business park and was bounded on three of its sides by what the plan showed as the internal estate road. The permission was a full permission with the standard 5-year time limit on commencement. Among the conditions imposed was the following: 
"11. The total floorspace to be used for non food retail shall not exceed 125,000 sq ft comprising a maximum number of five units which shall not be sub-divided but shall be occupied by a single non food retail operator." 
An agreement made under section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 between the council, ML Real Estate Ltd as owners, the mortgagees, and the contracting purchaser of the land, contained a similar provision. The application had been referred to the Secretary of State for the Environment as a departure from the development plan, but it was not called in despite the fact that there was an objection to it by Cornwall County Council. On 5 January 1994 a permission was granted on an application made in 1993 for "Extension of time limit of Decision ... dated 12/11/90 for erection of non-food retail units with associated car parking etc." The applicants were Ernst & Young, receivers for ML Real Estate Ltd, which was then in receivership. Although the p...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
McNally, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Education & Employment, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 27, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 380

2 

McNally 
CO/2182/1999 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 


Date: 27th July 2000 

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW 

B e f o r e : 

THE HON MR JUSTICE LANGLEY 


Between: 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Ms E. Grey (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor for the Respondent) 
Mr T. Straker QC (instructed by Messrs Stanley Monaghan for the Metropolitan Borough of Bury) 
Miss. A. Weston (instructed by Messrs Thompsons for the Applicant) 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 
Crown Copyright 


INTRODUCTION 
This is a difficult case which has rightly given rise to serious concern on the part of the Applicant, a teacher, the Governors of the School (Woodhey High School) at which he worked, the local Education Authority, the Metropolitan Borough of Bury in which the School is situated and the Respondent Secretary of State. 

BACKGROUND The Applicant has taught at the School for several years. In 1995 an...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Russell, R (On The Application Of) v Secretary Of State For Home Department & Ors, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 10, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 366





B e f o r e 

MR JUSTICE LIGHTMAN 

BETWEEN: 

THE QUEEN 

and 

(1) THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT 
(2) THE GOVERNOR OF HMP FRANKLAND 
(3) THE GOVERNOR OF HMP FULL SUTTON 
Respondents 

ex parte 

ANDREW RUSSELL 
Applicant 
_________ 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
_________ 
Ms Phillippa Kaufmann (Instructed by Messrs Bhatt Murphy, 23 Pitfield Street, London N1 6HB) appeared on behalf of the Applicant. 
Miss Alison Foster (Instructed by the Treasury Solicitor, Queen Anne's Chambers, 28 Broadway, London SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the Respondents. 



Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 








INTRODUCTION 1. This is an application by Mr Russell (pursuant to permission g...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 

Channel Tunnel Group Ltd & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secreatary Of State For Environment Transport & Regions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 30, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 425

1 

Case no: CO/2248/2000 

IN THE high court of justice 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of justice 
Strand, London, 
wc2a 2ll 

Thurday 30th November 2000 

Before: 

The honourable mr justice DYSONS 

------------------- 

The Queen on the Application of 
Channel Tunnel Group Ltd and 
France-Manche S.A. 
Respondent 
-v- 

The Secreatary of State for the 
Environment Transport and The 
Regions 
Applicant 
____________________ 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
____________________ 

Stuart Isaacs QC (only for the Judgment) & Clive Lewis (instructed by Mesrs Brachers, Maidstone, ME16 8JH for the Applicant) 

Jonathan Crow (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor for the Respondent) 

____________________ 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 




Introduction 

1. This is an application by the Channel Tunnel Group and Franche-Manche S A ("Eurotunnel") challenging the validity of two directions issued by the Secretary of State in connection with security at the Channel Tunnel. By Direction 15B/00 ("the X-ray Direction") made on 7 April 2000, Eurotunnel was required to install a new X-ray system. By direction 4B(2)/00 ("the Search Direction") made on 18 April 2000, Eurotunnel was required to increase the proportion of vehicles that were to undergo under-vehicle searches. These directions were purportedly made under The Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994 ("the Order"). Eurotunnel contends that the Secretary of State had no power to give such directions on the grounds that (a) directions made pursuant to the Order may not be imposed on Eurotunnel by one government acting unilaterally, and (b) the two directions with which this application is concerned were imposed unilaterally by the government of the United Kingdom. 

The legislative framework 

The Treaty of February 1986 between the United Kingdom and France 

2. The Treaty concerns the construction and operation by concessionaires of the Channel fixed link. So far as material, it provides as follows: 

"ARTICLE 5 
Defence and Security 
(1) Defence and security matters relating to the Fixed Link and the 
implementation of the Treaty shall be the subject of special arrangements between the two Governments. Such arrangements shall inc...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Atkins v Director Of Public Prosecutions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 08, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 302,[2000] 2 All ER 425,[2000] 1 WLR 1427,[2001] 1 WLR 1427


- 28 - 




Case No: CO/3417/99 
CO/3002/99 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 
DIVISIONAL COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Wednesday 8 March 2000 

B e f o r e : 

LORD JUSTICE SIMON BROWN 
and 
MR JUSTICE BLOFELD 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Miss Helen Malcolm (instructed by Offenbach & Co of London W1V 2BA Solicitors) appeared for the Appellant, Dr Atkins 
Mr Peter Blair (instructed by Nile Arnall of Bristol BS1 5NA Solicitors) appeared for the Appellant, Mr Goodland 
Mr Robert Davies (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the DPP 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 


Lord Justice Simon Brown: These two appeals by way of case stated raise a number of interesting and difficult questions as to the proper construction and application of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (the PCA) and s.160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (the CJA), provisions concerned with indecent photographs of children. 

Antony Rowan Atkins was convicted by the Avon Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate at Bristol Magistrates Court on 27 May 1999 of 10 offences of having in his possession indecent photographs of children between specified dates in October 1997 contrary to s.160(1) of the CJA. On 25 May 1999 the Magistrate had upheld a submission that Dr Atkins had no case to answer in respect of 21 additional counts of making indecent photographs of children between the same dates contrary to s.1(1)(a) of the PCA. Dr Atkins appeals against his conviction on the 10 possession counts; the DPP appeals against Dr Atkins' acquittal on the 21 "making" counts. 

Peter John Goodland was convicted by the Avon Justices at Bristol Magistrates Court on 21 April 1999 on one count of having in his possession on 5 November 1998 an indecent pseudo-photograph of a child contrary to s.160(1) of the CJA. He now appeals against that conviction. 
Although the two appeals raise entirely different points (both coming by sheer chance from Bristol Magistrates Court), it has se...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Shen, R (on the application of) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 25, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 452,[2001] INLR 389

SMITH BERNAL 
NO: CO/3808/98 
Neutral Citation Number: [2000] EWHC Admin 452 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 


Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Thursday, 25th May 2000 


B e f o r e: 


MR JUSTICE DYSON 



- - - - - - - 


R e g i n a 


-v- 


IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL 
EX PARTE SHEN 

- - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the stenograph notes of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 
180 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HG 
Telephone No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040 Fax No: 020 7404 1424 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - 

MR KADRI QC and MR E PIPI (instructed by Jonathan & Chuks, 48 Balls Pond Road, London N1 4AP) appeared on behalf of the Applicant 
MR WARD (instructed by the Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Respondent 

- - - - - - - 
J U D G M E N TThursday, 25th May 2000 


1. MR JUSTICE DYSON: This is an application for judicial review of the refusal by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, on 15th February 1998, to grant the applicant permission to appeal against the dismissal by the special adjudicator, on 27th May 1998, of his appeal against the refusal by the Secretary of State to grant him political asylum. 2. The applicant was born in China. He is now 45 years of age. He arrived in t...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Mahmood, R (On The Application Of) v Secretary Of State For Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, February 02, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 632


Case No: CO/3079/98 
Neutral Citation Number: [2001] EWHC Admin 632 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Thursday 9th August 2001 

B e f o r e : 



THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NEWMAN 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Clive Sheldon (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor for the Defendant) 
Ramby de Mello (instructed by Fawcett Pattni, Solicitors for the Claimant) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 

Mr Justice Newman: 
1. This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Secretary of State notifying the claimant that he was an `illegal entrant' and therefore liable to deportation. Permission was granted as long ago as 2 February 2000 by Latham J, and on l9 June 2000, Gibbs J made an order for cross examination of the claimant on an application by the Secretary of State. Mindful of what had been said by Thorpe LJ in Cendiz Doldur v Secretary of State for the Home Department 1998 [IMM AR 352] and since the Secretary of State maintained that deceit was to be inferred from what the claimant had failed to state to immigration officers, it was consi...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Powys County Council v National Assemble For Wales & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 30, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 313

15 

Case no: co/4392/99 
In the HIGH Court of JUSTICE 
SITTING AT SWANSEA CROWN COURT 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 
Royal Courts of justice 
Strand, London, wc2a 2ll 

Thursday 30 March 2000 

Before: 

thE HON MR JUSTICE turner 


Powys county council 
V 
National assemble for wales and johnathan hanson 

____________________ 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
____________________ 
MR IAIN COLEVILLE (instructed by RJ EAGLE for the Appellant) 
(1ST RESPONDENT NOT REPRESENTED) 
Ashley Underwood (instructed by Community Law Partnership for the 2nd Respondent) 
____________________ 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 
Crown Copyright © 


POWYS COUNTY COUNCIL 

v. 

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES and 

JONATHAN HANSON 


REASONS FOR J U D G M E N T 


MR JUSTICE TURNER: 1. This is a statutory appeal from the decision of an inspector appointed by the first respondent to hear the appeal of the second respondent from the decision of the applicants. By that decision the applicant County Council had refused to grant planning permission to the second respondent to enable him to site two caravans on a parcel of land known as Maes Bwch Dihangol, Argoed Lane, Nantglas, Llandridnod Wells, in the county of Powys. By decision which was promulgated on the 28th September, 1999 the appeal was allowed. The first respondent has not appeared on the hearing of th...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Chamberlain, R (On The Application Of) v Social Security Commissioner, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 07, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 364


Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2A 2LL 

7th July 2000 

B e f o r e 

MR JUSTICE LIGHTMAN 

BETWEEN: 

THE QUEEN 

and 

SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER 
Respondent 

ex parte 

SIDNEY CHAMBERLAIN 
Applicant 
- - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - 
Mr Nicholas Nicol (Instructed by Messrs Lawrence & Co, 474 Harrow Road, London W9 3RU) appeared on behalf of the Applicant. 
Mr David Forsdick (Instructed by the Solicitor to the DSS, New Court, Carey street, London WC1) appeared on behalf of the Respondent. 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 
Crown Copyright © 



Mr Justice Lightman: 

INTRODUCTION 1. This is an application made by Mr Sidney Chamberlain ("the Applicant") pursuant to permission granted by Ognall J on the 8th July 1999 for an order quashing a decision dated the 18th February 1999 ("the Decision") of the Social Security Commissioner ("the Commissioner"). The...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Proulx v Governor Of HM Prison Brixton & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 28, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 381


Case No.: CO/99/3802&3804 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 
Date:28 July 2000 
B e f o r e : 

LORD JUSTICE MANCE 
and 
MR JUSTICE NEWMAN 


- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Mr Michel Massih Q.C. and Mr Mark J Summers (instructed by Messrs. Lound Mulrenan) appeared for the Applicant 
Mr John Hardy (instructed by The Crown Prosecution Service) for the Respondents 
Bow Street Magistrates' Court were not represented 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 
Crown Copyright © 

Lord Justice Mance: 

1. Introduction 
During the night of 25/26th March 1995 Stacey Koehler was killed by blows struck to the head with a heavy implement in her flat in Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada. She had worked in a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant in New Westminster, and had been promoted to become its manager about two months before her death. The applicant worked in the same restaurant, as did Patricia Gulliford, who was his girlfriend until April 1995. The applicant and Patricia Gulliford were interviewed after Stacey Koehler's death. He told the police and Patricia Gulliford confirmed that he had been with Patricia Gulliford on the evening of 25th March 1995. According to an affidavit sworn 16th October 1998 by Patricia Gulliford, that was in fact incorrect. It is common ground that its incorrectness could give rise to no more than suspicion in relation to the applicant. He was not arrested, and he left Canada for Mexico using his own passport in or about August 1995. 

2. The applicant later moved to England, where he worked at the Queen Alexander Nursing Home, Folkestone. On 28th August 1998 he was arrested on a warrant for his arrest issued by the Bow Street Magistrates Court under s.8(1)(b) of the Extradition Act 1989. On 16th October 1998 nine affidavits were sworn setting out the basis and evidence upon which the respondent Government of Canada sought his extradition to Canada to stand trial for murder of Stacey Koehler. As will appear, the evidence relied upon is evidence of confessions made on 21st and 22nd August 1998 to Scott Doran, an officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police ("RCMP") working as an undercover agent in collaboration with the Kent Police Force and London Metropolitan Police in an operation code-named Implore. 

3. The Secretary of State gave authority to proceed under s.7(4) of the Extradition Act 1989 on 9th November 1998. The matter came before Mr Nicholas Evans, the Stipendiary Magistrate, under s.9(8) of the 1989 Act. That sub-section (as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994) reads: 

"9-(8) Where an authority to proceed has been issued in respect of the person arrested and the court of committal is satisfied, after hearing any representations made in support of the extradition request or on behalf of that person, that the offence to which the authority relates is an extradition crime, and is further satisfied- 
where that person is accused of the offence .... that the evidence would be sufficient to make a case requiring an answer by that person if the proceedings against him were the summary trial of an information against him; 
where that person is alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction of the offence, that he has been so convicted and appears to be so at large, 
the court .... shall commit him to custody or on bail- 
(i) to await the Secretary of State's decision as to his return; and 
(ii) if the Secretary of State decides that he shall be returned, to await his return." 

4. The offence in relation to which extradition is sought is an extradition crime within the meaning of s.9(8). The issue argued before the Stipendiary Magistrate was whether the evidence before him "would be sufficient to make a case requiring an answer by [the applicant] if the proceedings against him were the summary trial of an information against him". By a ruling handed down on 2nd September 1999, the Stipendiary Magistrate answered that issue affirmatively, and in consequence made an order for committal under s.9(8). 
5. Applications for habeas corpus under s.11(1) and/or (3)(b) and/or (c) of the 1989 Act and/or for judicial review were lodged on 16th September 1999. Permission to seek judicial review was granted on 11th April 2000, and the applications for habeas corpus and judicial review were consolidated. The primary ground upon which habeas corpus is sought is that the Magistrate erred in his conclusion that there was any sufficient evidence under s.9(8). This in turn depends upon submissions that the Magistrate ought - under ss.76 and/or 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 ("PACE") and/or ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Buckinghamshire County Council v Secretary Of State For Environment, Transport & Regions & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, August 31, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 386














1 




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CO 4769/99 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
(CROWN OFFICE LIST) 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Thursday, 31st August 2000 

B e f o r e: 

MR ROBIN PURCHAS QC 
(Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Queen's Bench Division) 

- - - - - - - 
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL 

-v- 

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, 
TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS 
and 
J BROWN 

- - - - - - - 

(Computer-aided Transcript of the Handed Down 
Judgment of Smith Bernal Reporting Limited 
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HD 
Telephone No:    020-7421 4040   020-7421 4040 
Fax No: 020-7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
MR B SEFI and MS K SHERRETT (for judgment) (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard, London WC1V 6HG) appeared on behalf of the Applicant. 

MR D ELVIN QC and MR D ABRAHAMS (for judgment) (instructed by The Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Respondent. 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 
(Crown Copyright) 
Mr Robin Purchas QC 


In this appeal Buckinghamshire County Council appeals under Section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act ("the 1990 Act") against a decision by an Inspector appointed by the First Respondent, allowing the appeal of the Second Respondent against an Enforcement Notice issued on the 8th December 1995 in respect of a building at Westhorpe Farm, Little Marlow ("the Building"). The Enforcement Notice was in respect of the change of use of the Building to an engineering workshop. The Second Respondent's appeal was allowed on ground (d), that is the use that commenced more than 10 years prior to the issue of the notice. 

Mr Benedict Sefi, who appears for the Appellant, relies upon two main grounds, both of which raise points of general importance: 

(1) That the Inspector erred in concluding that the Second Respondent was a competent Appellant for the purposes of Section 174 of the 1990 Act; and 
(2) That the Inspector erred in holding that the Second Respondent was not estopped from relying upon ground (d) in support of his appeal pursuant to Section 174. 

I will deal with each ground in turn. 

COMPETENCY 
The Statutory framework 
By Section 174 of the 1990 Act: 

"(1) A person having an interest in the land to which an enforcement notice relates or a relevant occupier may appeal to the Secretary of State against the notice, whether or not a copy of it has been served on him. ... 

(6) In this section "relevant occupier" means a person who 

(a) on the date on which the enforcement notice is issued occupies the land to which the notice relates by virtue of a licence; and 

(b) continues so to occupy the land when the appeal is brought." 


By Section 179: 


"(1) Where, at any time after the end of the period for compliance of an enforcement notice, any step required by the notice to be taken has not been taken or any activity required by the notice to cease is being carried on, the person who is then the owner of the land is in breach of the notice. ... 

(4) A person who has control of or an interest in the land to which an enforcement notice relates (other than the owner) must not carry on any activity which is required by the notice to cease or cause or permit such an activity to be carried on." 
B...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
X, R (on the application of) v Immigration Officer, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 26, 2000, [2000] EWHC 647 (Admin)

Case no: co/2355/1999 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE 

Royal Courts of justice 
Strand, London, wc2a 2ll 

Friday 26 May 2000 
Before: 

his hon MR JUSTICE Turner 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

THE QUEEN 
-v- 
AN IMMIGRATION OFFICER 

Ex parte J X 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Mr Steven kovats (instructed by Treasury Solicitors for the 1st Respondent) 
Miss stephanie harrison (instructed by Gill & Co for the Applicant) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

JudgmentMr Justice TURNER : 
Introduction 
1. This is an application for judicial review of the decision of an immigration officer dated 28 May 1999, by which he refused to grant the applicant exceptional leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom and enforced his removal to Malta. 

History 
2. On arrival in the United Kingdom from Malta on 12 December 1997, the applicant had applied for asylum, he provided various disconnected reasons for his application. His asylum application was refused on 29 January 1998. On 12 February, the immigration officer refused leave for the applicant to enter the United Kingdom. He was detained. Sometime after his detention in HMP Rochester, the applicant was seen by a psychiatrist and diagnosed as suffering from acutely psychotic symptoms with marked paranoid delusions. 

3. On the same day as he decided to refuse to grant leave to enter, the Secretary of State for the Home Department certified the asylum application under the provisions of paragraph 5(4)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. The applicant appealed against the decision refusing his asylum application. On 19 February 1998, the applicant was transferred to a psychiatric hospital under the provisions of sections 48 and 49 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (the Act of 1983). On investigation of the Maltese authorities, it transpired that the applicant had been admitted to a psychiatric hospital in Malta in 1994, "but had subsequently lapsed psychiatric follow up". 
4. On 18 September 1998, the applicant's asylum appeal was dismissed. The special adjudicator found that the removal of the applicant to Malta, with the accompanying risk that his mental health would deteriorate in consequence, would amount to inhuman or degrading treatment within Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and recommended that the Secretar...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 

Regentford Ltd, R (on the application of) v Canterbury Crown Court, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 21, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 440



Case No: CO/1868/2000 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
DIVISIONAL COURT AND 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Thursday 21 December 2000 

B e f o r e : 

LORD JUSTICE WALLER 

and 

SIR EDWIN JOWITT 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr Charles Salter, Mr Nicholas Fairbank (instructed by J J Goldstein & Co) for the Claimant 
Mr Jeremy Morgan for the Respondent 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 

Lord Justice Waller: 
Introduction The applicant was prosecuted under the Fire Precau...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Naeem v Bank Of Credit & Commerce, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 19, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 335



Case Number: CHANF 1999/0176/3 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
CHANCERY DIVISION 



Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Wednesday 19th April 2000 


Before: 

THE VICE-CHANCELLOR: 
The Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Scott 
-and- 
Lord Justice buxton 

B E T W E E N 

International S.A. 

__________________________________ 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
__________________________________ 

Mr Robin Allen QC & Mr Isaac Jacob (instructed by Messrs Bweale & Co for the Appellant) 
Mr Christopher Jeans QC & Mr D Stilitz (instructed by Messrs Lovells for the Respondent) 

__________________________________ 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 
The Vice-Chancellor:- 
1. Two claimants gave notice of appeal against the order of Lightman J of 30 December 1998. They were Mr Khawaja Mohammad Naeem and Mr Abdul Naim Mohammad. We were told that since then, Mr Mohammad has agreed terms of settlement with BCCI. Mr Naeem is now, therefore, the sole appellant. But the issues raised on this appeal do not depend to any significant, extent, if at all, on facts peculiar to Mr Naeem's case. They are issues which affect the cases of every BCCI ex-employee who, like Mr Naeem and Mr Mohammad, signed an ACAS COT3 form and thereby purported to accept the terms that BCCI were offering - 
"... in full and final settlement of all or any claims whether under, Statute, Common Law or in Equity of whatever nature that exist or may exist and, in particular, all or any claims rights or applications of whatsoever nature that the [ex-employee] has or may have or has made or could make in or to the Industrial Tribunal, except the [ex-employee's] rights under [BCCI's] pension scheme". 
2. The question for decision is whether Mr Naeem, who signed a COT3 form on 4 July 1990, thereby barred himself from subsequently bringing a "stigma" claim against BCCI. In Malik -v- BCCI [1998] AC 20 the House of Lords, reversing a unanimous Court of Appeal who had dismissed an appeal from Mr Justice Evans-Lombe, held that breach of contract "stigma" claims by ex-employees of BCCI could, if the requisite facts could be proved, succeed. 
3. It is accepted that, at the time Mr Naeem signed the COT3 agreement, he did not know that he could bring a breach of contract "stigma" claim against BCCI. It is to be assumed, for present purposes, that he was unaware of the Bank's illegal and dishonest conduct of its banking business; conduct that led to its collapse in the summer of 1991 and that, as the House of Lords held, may have constituted a breach by BCCI of the contractual obligation of trust and confidence that it owed to its employees. 
4. The main argument for Mr Naeem, presented very clearly by his counsel, Mr Robin Allen Q.C., is that since Mr Naeem did not know that he had a "stigma" claim, the COT3 agreement should not be construed so as to release that claim. There is, however, also a subsidiary argument. The illegal and dishonest nature of the business being carried on by BCCI, which is the foundation stone of the "stigma" claim, was something of which Mr Naeem was unaware but, obviously, was known to BCCI through the medium of one or more of its corrupt officers. Since BCCI did not, at the time the COT3 agreement was signed, make any disclosure to Mr Naeem of the facts, known to itself but not to Mr Naeem, giving rise to the "stigma" claim, the COT3 agreement cannot be enforced against Mr Naeem, at least so far as the release of the "stigma" claim is concerned. 
5. These two arguments are, or at least ought to be, distinct from one another. The first raises an issue of construction. The principles of construction of written documents should be applied to resolve it. The second argument involves a principle of equity. Should a beneficiary of a general release, who at the time of the release knows of some claim that the releasor can make against him but of which, to his knowledge, the releasor is ignorant, be permitted to rely on the general release in order to prevent that claim being made? In Taylor Fashions Ltd -v- Liverpool Trustees Ltd [1982] QB 133 Oliver J. was considering whether, in order to establish an estoppel by acquiescence, each and every one of the five "probanda" set out by Fry J. in Willmott -v- Barber (1880) 15 Ch.D. 96 had to be shown to be present. He rejected that rigid approach. He concluded that:- "... principle requires a very much broader approach which is directed at ascertaining whether, in particular individual circumstances, it would be unconscionable for a party to deny that which, knowingly or unknowingly, he has allowed or encouraged an...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Inland Revenue, R (on the application of) v Income Tax, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 14, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 354

22 

Case No: CO/2745/99 and CO/2979/99 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Wednesday14 June 2000 

B e f o r e : 
THE HON MR JUSTICE DYSON 

__________________________________ 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
__________________________________ 
Mr D GOLDBERG QC and Clive LEWIS (instructed by Messrs Travers Smith Braithwaite for the Ulster Bank Ltd.) 
Mr T. BRENNAN (instructed by the Solicitor of Inland Revenue for the Commissioners of Inland Revenue) 
-__________________________________ 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 




Mr Justice Dyson: 
Introduction 

1. These two applications concern section 20 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 (TMA). Under section 20, inspectors of taxes have power to call for documents from, amongst others, third parties to an investigation. In order to exercise that power, an inspector must first give a notice to the person from whom he wants the documents. Section 20(8) and (8A) provide that he can only give such notice without naming the taxpayer with whose liability he is concerned if a Special Commissioner gives his consent. One of the issues that arises for determination is whether, upon the true construction of section 20(8A) of TMA, an application to a Special Commissioner for consent may be made by an inspector only if it has been authorised by an order of the Board of the Inland Revenue itself, or whether it is sufficient that the application be authorised by an officer to whom the Board has delegated the requisite power. But before I come to the issues in more detail, I need to set the scene. 

2. Ulster Bank Limited ("UBL") is a wholly owned subsidiary of National Westminster Bank Plc. Its principal activity is that of deposit-taking. As part of its internal accounting mechanism, a "Sundry Parties' Account" was operated at each of its branches. This is an account through which may be passed isolated transactions with parties who may or may not be customers of the bank, or who may or may not have accounts at the branch. All branches of the bank will have a Sundry Parties' Account to record transactions which are not or cannot be dealt with through specific named accounts. UBL is not under investigation itself, and the Revenue is seeking information about other taxpayers whose transactions were passed through Sundry Parties' Accounts. It is accepted by the Revenue that such accounts can have entirely proper banking purposes. They can, however, be used as a means of facilitating fraud. This is because it is difficult to trace money transactions that pass through such accounts. The Revenue does not suggest that UBL has been complicit in a tax fraud. But it is of the opinion that sundry parties' accounts have been used by individuals for the purpose of serious fraud. The investigation which is the subject of these proceedings has the aim of unravelling these frauds. 
3. The history of the attempts by the Revenue to extract documents from UBL under section 20 of TMA is complex. It is unnecessary to examine it in detail. The relevant investigations started in 1995. In November 1997, the Revenue gave UBL a notice in relation to 6 named branches. That notice was challenged in judicial review proceedings on the grounds that it was oppressive. These proceedings were compromised and settlement agreements were reached. The first of these agreements dealt with the existing notice in relation to the 6 branches. The second, the so-called "New Notice Agreement" dated 18 September 1998, dealt with the procedure to be followed if the Revenue wished to give UBL a new notice ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
TVDANMARK 1 Ltd, R (on the application of) v Independent Television Commission, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, September 08, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 389

1 

CO 3036/2000 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2A 2LL 

08 September 2000 
B e f o r e 
Mr JACK BEATSON Q.C. 

Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge 

THE QUEEN 
v 

INDEPENDENT TELEVISION COMMISSION 
EX PARTE TVDANMARK 1 LIMITED 
- - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - 
MR P LEAVER QC, MS E GLOSTER QC (For Judgment) and MR A CHOO-CHOY appeared on behalf of the Appellant 

MS E APPLEBY QC AND MR J MOFFETT (instructed by Simmons & Simmons, London EC2M) appeared on behalf of the Respondent 
- - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 
Crown Copyright © 


Mr JACK BEATSON Q.C. 

The Applicant, TVDanmark 1 ("TVD"), is a television broadcaster established in the United Kingdom, holding a satellite television licence granted to it under Part 1 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 by the Independent Television Commission (the "ITC"). On 5 June this year acquired the exclusive rights to televise the five World Cup 2002 away matches of the Danish national football team live into Denmark from UFA Sports GmbH ("UFA"), a German company for Danish Kroner 3.35 million per match. 

On 5 July TVD applied, as it was required to by section 101B(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1996, to the ITC for the ITC's consent to TVD's broadcast of these matches exclusively live into Denmark. On 17 August 2000 the ITC refused to give its consent and on 22 August 2000 TVD applied for permission to move for the judicial review of the ITC's decision. 

The application for permission came before me on Friday 1st September, the day before the first match was to be played. Evidence was filed on behalf of the applicant by Mr Lund, its Managing Director, and on behalf of the ITC, by Mr Johnson, Head of Programme Policy at the ITC, the official responsible for the handling of TVD's application. The ITC did not resist the granting of permission, which was granted and, in view of the urgency, I heard the substantive application. 

Section 101B(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1996 was inserted into the Act by the Television Broadcast Regulations 2000 S.I. 2000 No. 54 in order to implement the 1997 amendments to the 1989 Television without Frontiers Directive, Council Directive 89/552/EEC, contained in Directive 97/36/EC, and in particular the new Article 3a(3) concerning broadcasts of designated events to another Member State. In certain circumstances, including this case, such broadcasts are prohibited without the consent of the ITC. TVD's request was the first one for consent under section 101B. As will be seen, its provisions differ from those governing consent by the ITC in respect of United Kingdom domestic listed events. 

TVD's legal challenge stems from the way the Statutory Code on Sports and other Listed Events was revised to incorporate the provisions of the Directive. In the case of consents to United Kingdom domestic listed events the criteria in the Code are concerned with whether broadcasters have had a genuine opportunity to acquire the rights in question on fair and reasonable terms. Although the Directive and section 101B(1) are concerned with the "exercise" of rights by a broadcaster, the new paragraph 26 of the Code dealing with consents in respect of broadcasts to another Member State states that it will take into account similar criteria to those applicable to United Kingdom domestic listed events. At the core of this case is whether the fact that TVD purchased its exclusive rights in the course of an auction in which other broadcasters, including DR and TV2, the Danish public broadcasters, participated meant that consent should have been granted as it probably would in a purely domestic case, or whether, having acquired the rights, TVD should have offered them to the Danish public broadcasters. Mr Leaver Q.C. on behalf of TVD submitted that there is no legal basis in the Directive, the 1996 Act or the Code for the ITC's request that TVD offer the rights they acquired to DR and TV2. TVD also claimed to have a legitimate expectation that the ITC would grant consent in accordance with the criteria stated to be relevant in the Code and, as a minimum, should have been given clear notice that the ITC was minded to apply different criteria. 

The legislative and regulatory framework 
The rules governing the broadcasting of sporting and other events of national interest are...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Wiggins, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport & Regions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 21, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 436




Case No: CO/1971/2000 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 


Thursday 21 December 2000 


b e f o r e : 

THE HON. MR JUSTICE COLLINS 



(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 , Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr. Christopher Katkowski QC and Mr. David Forsdick (Lake Lapthorne, Holbrook House, 14 Great Queen street, London, WC2B 5DG) For the appellants 
Mr. Timothy Corner (The Treasury Solicitor, Queen Ann's Chambers, 28 Broadway, London, SW1H 9JS) For the Respondent 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 
Crown Copyright © 

Mr Justice COLLINS: This is an appeal under s.289 of the Town an Country Planning Act 1990 by Cecil Wiggins and Wiggins transport Ltd. whereby they seek to quash an enforcement notice which was substantially upheld by an inspector on 8 May 2000 follo...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Khan & Anor, R (on the application of) v London Borough Of Newham, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 19, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 334




Case No: CO/0213/2000 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 


Wednesday 19 April 2000 



be f o r e : 

THE HON MR JUSTICE COLLINS 
__________________________________ 


__________________________________ 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
__________________________________ 
Mr Jan LUBA instructed by the Aina Khan Partnership for the Applicant 
Mr D MATTHIAS instructed by the Solictor to Newham Council for the Respondent 
__________________________________ 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 



Mr Justice COLLINS: 
The applicants are sisters. In October 1991 their mother, Mrs Inayat Begum, became tenant under an assured shorthold of a three bedroom house in Plaistow. The applicants lived with her. Each was married and had children. Unfortunately, one of Ruksana's daughters, Neelofar, suffers from learning difficulties and so needs special tuition. In addition, Mrs Begum is unwell, suffering from diabetes, loss of memory and some physical mobility problems. She requires attention because of her health problems and Farzana was in receipt of an invalid care allowance for taking care of her mother. 
Housing benefit was claimed by Mrs Begum and, for the purposes of that benefit, the household was considered to comprise herself and each applicant, her husband and child or children. In April 1999 the owner of the premises served notice seeking possession. Since the owner required possession to enable her to live in the premises, possession had to be given. There was no defence. Possession proceedings were commenced in September 1999 and on 12 November 1999 an order of possession was granted by the judge at Bow County Court. This required Mrs Begum to give possession on 10 December 1999. 
On 8 November 1999 Ruksana attended Plaistow South Housing Office to apply for housing assistance. She explained that possession proceedings were due to be heard shortly and told the officer who lived in the house. The officer advised her that she, her sister and her mother were each likely to be in priority need and that, if an application under the homelessness provisions were made on behalf of all, there would be a need for a 5 bedroom house and that would mean a very long wait since such premises were rarely available. If individual applications were made, the situation would be much easier since two or three bedroom properties were more readily available. On 2 December 1999, following the making of the possession order, both applicants went to the Housing Office. They were interviewed. According to the housing officer, they elected to make separate applications and their mother was included on Ruksana's; this was, so the housing officer states, at their request. It is perhaps hardly surprising having regard to the advice that had been given to Ruksana on 8 November. The reality is that the family was placed in an impossible dilemma. If they decided to stick together, they would get no accommodation for a substantial period of time. If they wanted accommodation within a reasonable time, they ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Dinev & Ors, R (on the application of) v City of Westminster Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 24, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 407






Case No: CO/1096/2000 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Date: 24th October 2000 

B e f o r e : 

THE HON MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY 



THE QUEEN 

ON THE APPLICATION OF 

(1) Mr. Jivko Dinev (2) Mr. Dritan Duro (3) Mr. Petrit Gorovelli 
(4) Mr. Anthony Graham (5) Ms. Svetlana Jemeljanova (6) Ms. Galina Kirk 
(7) Mr. Iordan Kirtchev (8) Mr. Walery Martynchyk (9) Ms. Rebecca Newman 
(10) Mr. William Robinson (11) Mr. Igor Romanko (12) Mr. Ilham Safarli 
(13) Mr. Igor Slaouk (14) Mr. Elidon Veshi (15) Ms. Olga Yatchmenkova and 
(16) Mr. Paolo Zeminian 

v. 

THE CITY OF WESTMINSTER COUNCIL 

------------------------- 

Mr. Jonathan Miller (instructed by Bow and Shore) appeared for the Applicants 
Mr. Timothy Spencer (instructed by The City of Westminster) appeared for the Respondents 



J U D G M E N T As Approved b...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Lewis, R (On The Application Of) v Prosetists & Orthotists Board, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 18, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 450


CO/4278/2000 
[2000] EWHC 450 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
(ADMINISTRATIVE COURT) 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Monday, 18th December 2000 
B e f o r e: 

MR JUSTICE HUNT 

- - - - - - - 

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF 

JULIUS LEWIS 

-v- 

THE PROSTHETISTS AND ORTHOTISTS BOARD 

- - - - - - 
(Computer-aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited 
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG 
Telephone No: 0171-421 4040/0171-404 1400 
Fax No: 0171-831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - 
MR N BROWN (instructed by Willcox Lane Clutterbuck, 55 ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Ministry Of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food v Pitt, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 27, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 310


- 1 - 



Case No: CO/4606/99 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
COURT OF APPEAL (QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION) 
ON APPEAL FROM CROWN OFFICE 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Monday 27 March 2000 

B e f o r e : 

LORD JUSTICE SCHIEMANN 
MR. JUSTICE ASTILL 
- - - - - - - - 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
DAVID LLOYD JONES (instructed by Solicitor to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the Appellant) 
MAURICE SHERIDAN (instructed by Messrs. Wilsons, Salisbury, for the Respondent) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 











Lord Justice Schiemann: 

2 
This is a prosecutor's appeal by way of case stated from a decision of magistrates. It raises a point of general significance to egg producers in relation to the marks which may be affixed to eggs and their boxes referring to the day of laying. The magistrates have held that a mark stating "laid between 21 - 23rd. October is...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
M, Re Section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 04, 2000, [2000] EWHC 642 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL 
CO 1484/2000 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
(CROWN OFFICE LIST) 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Thursday, 4th May 2000 

B e f o r e: 


MR JUSTICE BURTON 

- - - - - - - - - - - - 

IN THE MATTER OF G. M. 

-v- 


IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 3 OF THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1983 


- - - - - - - - - - - - 

(Computer-aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited 
180 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HD 
Telephone No: 0171-421 4040/0171-404 1400 
Fax No: 0171-831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - 
MR KEVIN MUSAHEB (instructed by Peter Edwards & Co, Hoylake, Wirral, CH47 2AE) appeared on behalf of the Applicant. 

MR ANDREW HOCKTON (instructed by David Tysoe, Solicitor, Matlock, Derbyshire DE4 3AG) appeared on behalf of the Derbyshire County Council and Ms Donaghy. 

MR HUW LLOYD (instructed by Beachcroft Wansbroughs, Sheffield S10 2G2) appeared on behalf of the Community Health Services 
(North Derbyshire) NHS Trust. 
- - - - - - - - - - - - 
J U D G M E N TThursday, 4th May 2000 
JUDGMENT 
1. MR JUSTICE BURTON: This is an application for leave to issue a writ of habeas corpus brought on behalf of G.M. who is presently a mental patient at the Hartington Wing of the Royal Hospital, Chesterfield in Derbyshire. He has an unfortunate medical history of which the medical practitioners involved in this case had a considerable knowledge. 2. The approved social worker, however, Mrs Elizabeth Donaghy had only indirect knowledge of Mr M.'s mental state from some two weeks prior to his admission, as a result of a discussion with those who have been involved with his care, and she herself had not met Mr M.. Nevertheless, as I have indicated, she was armed with knowledge about him and in particular knowledge of the circumstances which in April of this year had heightened the concerns of those involved with his care, parti...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
London Electricity Plc, R (on the application of) v Director General Of Electricity Supply, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 15, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 340


19 


Case No: CO/1582 /99 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Monday 15 May 2000 

B e f o r e : 

Mr Justice Harrison 



THE QUEEN 
V 
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY Respondent 

Ex parte 
LONDON ELECTRICITY plc Applicants 


__________________________________ 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
__________________________________ 

Richard Field QC and Nigel Giffin - for the Applicants 
(Instructed by Herbert Smith Solicitors) 
Kenneth Parker QC and Mark Shaw - for the Respondent 
(Instructed by Treasury Solicitor) 
__________________________________ 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 


Introduction 
This is an application for judicial review of a determination made on behalf of the respondent, the Director General of Electricity Supply ("the Director General"), by Mr Saunders, who is the Director of Regulation and Business Affairs at the Office of Electricity Regulation ("Offer"). The determination was made on 27 January 1999 with reasons given later on 7 April 1999. The determination was that the charge which the applicant, a public electricity supplier, might properly require Mrs Elnaugh to pay for an upgraded supply of electricity to her home was zero. 
Mrs Elnaugh is a resident of Mitcham Garden Village ("the Village"). The Village consists of some 88 dwellings which are all owned by the Mitcham Garden Village Trust ("the Trust") which is a register...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd, R (on the application of) v Environment Agency & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, September 08, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 388


Case No: CO/0512/2000 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Thursday 9th November 2000 


be f o r e : 

MR JUSTICE COLLINS 



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Michael Fordham, for the Applicant 
Tom De La Mare and Philip Sales for the Secretary of State John Howell Q.C and Mary Hoskins f...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Rumsey v Secretary Of State For Environment Transport & Regions & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 11, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 399

11 

Case no: CO/563/2000 

IN THE high court of justice 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
CROWn OFFICE 

Royal Courts of justice 
Strand, London, wc2a 2ll 

Wednesday 11 October, 2000 

Before: 

MR DUNCAN OUSLEY QC 
(Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Queen's Bench Division) 

------------------- 

RUMSEY 
-v- 
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT 
TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS 
and 
WAVERLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL 
____________________ 

(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
____________________ 

MR J. PERERIRA (Instructed by Shuttan Paul & Co, Middle*** UB1 1SW) appeared on behalf of the Appellant 

MR M GIBBON (Instructed by the Treasury Solicitor, London SW1H) appeared on behalf of the Respondent 
____________________ 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 







MR DUNCAN OUSLEY QC: 
The Claimant sought planning permission for an extension to his house, by way of adding a floor to the existing bungalow, and approximately doubling its present size. The house "Beechnut House", Green Lea Wood, Frensham Hall Estate, Haslemere, is one of a number scattered in the countryside of Waverley Borough Council, beyond the Green Belt, in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and an Area of Great Landscape Value. Waverley Borough Council refused planning permission because of the harmful conflict, which it thought the prop...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
East Riding Of Yorkshire Council, R (on the application of) v Joint Committee For Purpose Of Making Appointments To Humberside Police Auority, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 19, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 434



Case No: CO/3470/2000 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Tuesday 19th December 2000 

B e f o r e : 

THE HON MRS JUSTICE RAFFERTY 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Mr T Straker QC and Mr R Palmer (instructed by Sharp Pritchard Solicitors for the Appellant) 
Mr A Pardoe QC (for the Respondent) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 
Crown Copyright © 







MRS JUSTICE RAFFERTY: 
1. This is an application for judicial review of the 4th September 2000 decision of the Joint Committee for the purpose of making appointments to the Humberside Police Authority ("the joint committee") to appoint members of the police authority and/or to resolve that it was entitled to disregard independent councillors in the exercise of its duty to ensure that the members it appoints to the Humberside Police Authority reflect the balance of parties for the time being prevailing among the members of the relevant councils taken as a whole. The relief sought is certiorari to quash the decision, and a stay of the implementation of any decision purportedly made on the 4th. 
2. On the 1st May 1996, Humberside County Council and the District Councils within that area were replaced by 4 unitary authorities, who assumed responsibility for the County District Councils' functions. Those authorities are the East Riding of Yorkshire, Kingston Upon Hull, North East Lincolnshire and North Lincolnshire. Because the...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Popely & Anor v Scott, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 21, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 441





Case No: CO 1094/2000 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICIARY 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
(DIVISIONAL COURT) 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 


Thursday 21st December 2000 


B e f o r e : 

LORD JUSTICE ROSE 
and 
THE HON MRS JUSTICE RAFFERTY 



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr C Treacy QC and Mr W Hibbert (instructed by Mark Agombar, Solicitor for the First and Second Appellants and by Dechert, Solicitors for the Third Appellant) 
Mr A Saggerson (for the Respondent) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 







Mrs Justice Rafferty: 
1. This is an appeal by way of case stated from a decision of the Sevenoaks and Tunbridge Wells Magistrates. On the 20th May 1999 the Respondent laid informations against each appellant that 

a. "The 23rd May 1998 at Hever did (sic) in the course of a business 
Hever Worldwide Properties plc, as offeror, entered into a timeshare 
agreement with Mr and Mrs Jonathon Hamilton Marshall as offerees, 
without Mr and Mrs Marshall having received, together with the document 
setting out the terms of the timeshare agreement or the substance of it, 
notice of their right to cancel. Contrary to sections 2.3 and 9.2 of the 
Timeshare Act 1992, as amended by the Timeshare Regulations 1997." 

b. "On the 10th June 1998 at Hever did (sic) in the course of a business 
Hever Worldwide Properties plc as offeror entered into a timeshare 
agreement with Mr Edward John Worth and Ms Emma Jane Leach as 
offerees, without Mr Worth and Ms Leach having received, together 
with the document setting out the terms of the timeshare agreement or 
the substance of it, notice of their right to cancel. Contrary to 2.3 and 9.2 of the Timeshare Act 1992, as amended by t...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
GA, R (on the application of) v Islington London Borough Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, September 08, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 390

1 

CO 2559/2000 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2A 2LL 

08 September 2000 

B e f o r e 

Mr JACK BEATSON Q.C. 
Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge 


THE QUEEN 

v 

ISLINGTON LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL 
EX PARTE G.A. 

- - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - 
MR P BOWEN (instructed by John Ford Morrison, London N1 8LN) appeared on behalf of the Appellant 

MR T KERR (instructed by Islington Council, London N1 2UD) appeared on behalf of the Respondent 

- - - - - - - - - - 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 



Mr JACK BEATSON Q.C. 


The Applicant is a nine year old boy with special educational needs. He has severe learning difficulties with autistic features secondary to brain damage acquired through an immunodeficiency state. Since September 1997 he has been a weekly border at Doucecroft School near Colchester, an independent school run by the Es*** Autistic Society. It takes approximately one and a half hours to drive the 75 miles from the parents home to the school. The present proceedings arise out of a decision of the Respondent local education authority dated 25 May 2000 refusing to finance the transport of the applicant to and from Doucecroft School. Transport has until now been provided by the applicant's mother or by a family friend. The Applicant's case is that the local education authority has unlawfully refused to meet the transport costs to and from school which sections 324(5)(a)(ii), 509, and 19 of the Education Act 1996 empower it to meet. Originally the claim was that the authority was under an obligation to meet all transport costs, but, in opening the case on behalf of the Applicant, Mr Bowen stated that what was being challenged was the decision not to provide the Applicant with any free transport and that what was sought was sufficient free transport. Suitable amendments were made to the form 96A. 

Permission to apply for judicial review was granted on 27 July by Harrison J who ordered expedition and made an order under section 39 of the Children & Young Persons Act 1933 to preserve the applicant's anonymity. I will refer to him as G.A., and any report must suitably disguise his identity. 
G.A's parents first had contact with the local education authority in 1995. In March 1996 the authority informed them that it was proposing to carry out a statutory assessment of G.A.'s special educational needs and, after making the assessment, that they would make a statement of his needs. There were discussions between Mr Gurney, the authorit...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Guleed, R (on the application of) v London Borough Of Barnet, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 09, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 5



Case No: CO/3745/2000 
Neutral Citation Number: [2001] EWCA ADMIN 5 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
The Strand 
London 
WC2A 2LL 

Thursday 18th January 2001 

Before: 

THE HON MR JUSTICE HOOPER 

The Queen on the application of Roda Guleed 

-v- 

The London Borough of Barnet 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr. STEPHEN KNAFLER and MISS BETHAN HARRIS (instructed by Messers Bindman & Partners for the Claimant) 
Mr. HILTON HARROP-GRIFFITHS (instructed by London Borough of Barnet for the Defendant. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 













MR JUSTICE HOOPER: 

This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the defendant Borough communicated in a letter dated 9th October 2000. During the course of the hearing I granted permission and the parties had previously agreed at an earlier hearing before me that, should I grant permission, I would consider the full application. The claimant is a Dutch national of Somal...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Sage v Secretary Of State For Environment Transport & Regions & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 11, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 394

1 

Case no: CO/94/2000 

IN THE high court of justice 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
CROWn OFFICE 

Royal Courts of justice 
Strand, London, wc2a 2ll 

Wednesday, 11 October, 2000 

Before: 

MR DUNCAN OUSLEY QC 
(Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Queen's Bench Division) 

------------------- 

ALAN FRANK SAGE 
- v - 

the secretary of state for environment 
transport and the regions 

and 

maidstone borough council 
____________________ 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
____________________ 

MS ALICE ROBINSON (instructed by Brachers, Maidstone, Kent ME16 8IH) appeared on behalf of the Appellant 

JONATHON KARAS and RICHARD BARRACLOUGH (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor, London SW1H) appeared on behalf of the Respondent 
____________________ 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 



MR DUNCAN OUSLEY QC: 
This is an appeal under s289(1) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the decision of an Inspector dismissing the Claimant's appeal against an enforcement notice issued by Maidstone Borough Council on 19th March 1999. Three enforcement notices were the subject of decisions in the same letter by the Inspector. I am concerned only with Appeal B, which was made in respect of an enforcement notice, which, as corrected by the Inspector, alleged that there had been an breach of planning control by "the partial erection of a dwelling house," described as Building A. The notice required the demolition of the building and the removal of all the resultant materials. 
The Claimant's appeal raised a number of issues but it is the way in which the ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Garland, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Environment Transport & Regions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 10, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 417


Case no: CO/4215/2000 

IN THE high court of justice 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 

Royal Courts of justice 
Strand, London, wc2a 2ll 

Friday 10 November, 2000 

Before: 

mr justice Turner 

------------------- 

The Queen ON THE APPLICATION OF 

Garland 

-V- 

The Secretary of State for the Environment 
Transport and The Regions 
____________________ 

(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
____________________ 

Mr David Forsdick (instructed by Rowe & Maw) for the District Auditor 
Miss Jane Mulcahy (instructed by Burgess Salmon) for the Applicant 
____________________ 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 

TURNER J 
1. On 16 July 1997 the respondent communicated his decision on the applicant's appeal under the provisions of regulation N8 of the Local Government Superannuation Regulations 1986. The questions which had been referred to the Secretary of State were 
Whether (the applicant's) pension should have been reduced by the county council 
What payments should be used to calculate (the applicant's) pensionable remuneration? 

The Determination was 
that it was within the county council's powers under the regulations as administrative authority to reduce (his) pension; and furthermore 
that (his) pension has been correctly calculated based on (his-) pensionable remuneration. 

2. The Regulations in question provide that entitlement to benefit is to be decided by the last employing authority, in this case, the West Wiltshire District Council (the District Council). But where there is a dispute as to the amount of any benefit, that is to be determined by the administering authority, in this case the Wiltshire County Council (the County Council); see Regulations N5 and N6. On the hearing of the present application, the Secretary of State was not represented but did submit writtenobservations. His position was essentially one of neutrality. The effective other party to the proceedings was the District Auditor of West Wiltshire District Council (Richard Lott). 
Application by Richard Lott to be joined as a respondent 3. Permission was granted to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the determination by the Secretary of State on 25 November 1999. On 18 July of this year, the District Auditor, in the person of Richard Lott issued an application to be joined as respondent in these proceedings. It was agreed that this proc...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Hunt, R (on the application of) v Criminal Cases Review Commission, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 31, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 307



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CO/3098/99 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 

Norwich Crown Court 
Tuesday, 21st March, 2000 


BEFORE 


THE HON. MR. JUSTICE OWEN 

B E T W E E N: 
REGINA 

- and - 

CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION 
Respondent 
- and - 

MICHAEL JOHN HUNT 
Applicant 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr. Robert Rhodes QC and Mr. Simon Stafford-Michael, 
instructed by Messrs, Wakefields, Thames House, London, 
appeared for the Applicant. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 









1. This Applicant seeks permission to review judicially two decisions of the Criminal Cases Review Commission each dated the 27th May 1999. The first was ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Samuel Smi Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v North Yorkshire County Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 19, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 336


- 15 - 




Case No: CO/4424/99 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 

Liverpool Crown Court 
Queen Elizabeth II Law Courts 
Liverpool L2 1XA 

Wednesday 19th April 2000 
B e f o r e : 

THE HON MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY 


__________________________________ 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
__________________________________ 
Mr Peter Village and Mr Martin Chamberlin (instructed by Pinsent Curtis) appeared 
for the Claimant) 
Mr Colin Crawford (instructed by North Yorkshire County Council) appeared for the Respondent) 
__________________________________ 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 









Mr Justice Maurice Kay: The market town of Tadcaster in North Yorkshire has been known for centuries as a brewing town. Today three brewing companies are active there. One of them is Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster), which I shall refer to as SSOBT. In the 1980's SSOBT commissioned a firm of architects to produce a scheme for the redevelopment of part of the town centre. They produced a report known as Vision of Tadcaster. One of its central features was the pedestrianisation of Westgate, Kirkgate and Chapel Street with the attendant road widening of St. Joseph's Street for divert...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Trades Union Congress, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Trade & Industry, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 23, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 345

- 1 - 




Case No: CO/376/2000 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
QUEEN'S BENCH (DIVISIONAL COURT) 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Tuesday 23 May 2000 

B e f o r e : 

LORD CHIEF JUSTICE 
Mr JUSTICE MORISON 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 





- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Cherie Booth QC, Dinah Rose, Helen Mountfield, Deok-Joo Rhee (instructed by Thompsons) for the applicant 
Jonathan Crow and Rabinder Singh (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) 
for the Secretary of State 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 



Mr Justice Morison: 

This is the judgment of the court. 
1. The principal issue on this application is whether the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999 (S.I. 3312/1999) [the Regulations] made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry properly transposed into domestic law Council Directive 96/34/EC [the Dire...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
B, R (on the application of) v North East Thames Mental Health Review Tribunal, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 13, 2000, [2000] EWHC 640 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL 
CO 2556/1999 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
(CROWN OFFICE LIST) 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Tuesday, 13th June 2000 

Before: 

MR JUSTICE SCOTT-BAKER 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

REGINA 

-v- 

THE NORTH EAST THAMES MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW TRIBUNAL 
EX PARTE F. B 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

(Computer-aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited 
180 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HD 
Telephone No: 0207-421 4040/0207-404 1400 Fax...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Royal & Sun Alliance Life & Pensions Ltd, R (on the application of) v Personal Investment Authority Ombudsman Bureau Ltd & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 27, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 379

2 

CO/46/2000 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Thursday 27th July 2000 

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW 

B e f o r e : 

THE HON MR JUSTICE LANGLEY 

Between: 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Mr J. Strachan (instructed by Personal Investment Authority Ombudsman Bureau for the Respondent) 
Mr N. F. Riddle (instructed by Royal & Sun ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Structadene Ltd, R (on the application of) v Hackney London Borough Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 19, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 405

15 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Case No CO/921/2000 
QUEEN S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRAXTIVE COURT LIST 
Royal Courts of Justice, 
Strand, London, 
WC2A2LL 

Thursday 19 October 2000 
Before: 

The Hon. Mr Justice Elias 


Between: 

THE QUEEN 

on behalf of 

STRUCTADENE LIMITED 
(Applicant) 

v. 

HACKNEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL 
(Respondent) 



----------------------------- 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
----------------------------- 

Mr Kelvin A Rutledge appeared on behalf of the Applicant 

Mr John Hobson Q.C. appeared on behalf of the Respondent 

----------------------------- 

Judgment 

As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 


The applicant in this action, a well-established property company, seeks judicial review of the decision of the respondent council to sell certain properties to third parties, and to have the contract whereby the sale has been agreed set aside. It also seeks an order of mandamus requiring the council to sell the property by auction. The respondent council concedes that it did indeed act unlawfully in entering into the contract in that it did not take proper steps to obtain the best value pursuant to section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 ("the Act") nor, in the alternative, did it obtain the consent of the Secretary of State for the sale. If his consent is given then a sale which is for less than best value is nonetheless lawful. The council, however, contends that the court cannot now quash the decision or set aside the contract. It submits that the rights of third parties are protected by section 128(2) of the Act, and cannot now be unravelled. The Council accepts that it would be open to the court to declare the decision unlawful, but says that there would at this stage be no purpose in such relief being given. The applicant contends that in the circumstances of this case the contract can be set aside and that effective relief for the admittedly wrongful act is to hand. Whether that is right depends upon the proper construction of Section 128(2) and its application to the facts. 

The background This can be stated relatively briefly. The mate...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Norgren, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, February 18, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 296,[2000] 3 WLR 181,[2000] QB 817


- 20 - 




Case No: C0-4530-97 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (DIVISIONAL COURT) 
In the matter of an application for judicial review 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Friday, 18 February 2000 

B e f o r e : 


LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES 
(LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL) 

Mr JUSTICE KLEVAN 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Clare Montgomery QC & James Lewis (instructed by Kingsley Napley) 
for the applicant 
James Turner QC (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State 
Paul Garlick QC (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the 
United States Government 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 


LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES: 
The applicant Mr Christian Norgren, seeks judicial review of an order to proceed made by the Home Secretary on 30 September 1997 under paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 1 to the Extradition Act 1989. 

The applicant is a Swedish citizen. In 1989 he was a director of Asea Brown Boveri Ltd, a multinational corporation. In his capacity as director he became aware of a proposed merger between an Asea Brown Boveri subsidiary and a Delaware corporation, Combustion Engineering Inc. It is alleged that with that knowledge, and in expectation that the merger would cause a rise in the value of the stock in Combustion Engineering, the applicant procured the purchase of Combustion Engineering stock on his own behalf on the New York and Pacific Stock Exchanges. 
The...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd, R (on the application of) v Special Commissioner, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 08, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 415



Case no: CO/4481/2000 

IN THE high court of justice 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 

Royal Courts of justice 
Strand, London, wc2a 2ll 

Wednesday 8 November 2000 

Before: 

LORD JUSTICE BUXTON 
And 
MR JUSTICE PENRY DAVEY 
------------------- 

The Queen 
-v- 
A SPECIAL COMMISSIONER 
EX PARTE MORGAN GRENFELL & CO LTD 
____________________ 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
____________________ 

Michael Beloff QC and Mr Giles Goodfellow (instructed by Messers Slaughter and May) for the applicants 

Mr Timothy Brennan and Miss Ingrid Simler (instructed by the Solicitor to the Inland Revenue) for the Respondents 

____________________ 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 

LORD JUSTICE BUXTON: 

This is the judgment of the Court. 
Background 
These proceedings arise in the context of a tax-related scheme called Sale With Tax Enhanced Leasing Arbitrage [STELA] devised and operated by Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd [MG], the well-known merchant bank. The scheme was commended to clients by MG as enabling them to secure extremely low cost term funding through a tax arbitrage based on property. 
It will be necessary to describe STELA in somewhat more detail at a later stage of this judgment. Its essence, however, was that (to quote MG's documentation promoting the scheme) the client (in the example at which these proceedings are directed, Tesco plc) 
grants a long leasehold interest in property that it already owns to [MG] and then leases it back under a sub-lease in a highly tax efficient manner........The lump sum obtained from the grant of the property interest is amortised through rental payments made by Tesco under the sub-lease. Tesco receives the sale proceeds tax free (or sheltered from tax) and obtains a tax deduction for the rental payments which repay both the principal and the interest. That is the tax advantage obtained by Tesco. The substantial premium paid by MG for the granting of the leasehold interest, seen by Tesco as the proceeds of the sale of the lease, would not be expec...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
KL v Worcestershire County Council & Ors, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 15, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 303

- 13 - 



Case No: 1999/1252/C 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
COURT OF APPEAL QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST (CARNWATH J) 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Wednesday 15 March 2000 

B e f o r e : 

LORD CHIEF JUSTICE 
Of England & Wales (Lord Birmingham of Cornhill) 
LORD JUSTICE PILL 
and 
LADY JUSTICE HALE 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Richard Gordon QC & Nicholas Bowen (instructed by Rust Moss & Co., 48 Blackburn Road, Accrington, Lancashire, BB5 1LE) for the appellant 
David Wolfe (Mr J Moffatt 15.3.00)(instructed by Simon Mallinson, Head of Legal Services, Worcestershire County Council, County Hall, Spetchley Road, Worcestershire, WR5 2NP) for the respondents 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 


Lady Justice Hale: 

1. This is the judgment of the Court. 

Facts 2. K was born on 1 June 1990. She has cerebral palsy, which affects her fine and gross motor movements. She also has Turner's Syndrome which results in small stature. Because of these physical disabilities she has special educational needs. Her mother wishes her to go to A Manor School which is a small private special school. The Special Educational Needs Tribunal has decided that she should go to a mainstream day school which is able to provi...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Mahmood, R (On The Application Of) v Secretary Of State For Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, February 02, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 632


Case No: CO/3079/98 
Neutral Citation Number: [2001] EWHC Admin 632 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Thursday 9th August 2001 

B e f o r e : 



THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NEWMAN 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Clive Sheldon (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor for the Defendant) 
Ramby de Mello (instructed by Fawcett Pattni, Solicitors for the Claimant) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 

Mr Justice Newman: 
1. This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Secretary of State notifying the claimant that he was an `illegal entrant' and therefore liable to deportation. Permission was granted as long ago as 2 February 2000 by Latham J, and on l9 June 2000, Gibbs J made an order for cross examination of the claimant on an application by the Secretary of State. Mindful of what had been said by Thorpe LJ in Cendiz Doldur v Secretary of State for the Home Department 1998 [IMM AR 352] and since the Secretary of State maintained that deceit was to be inferred from what the claimant had failed to state to immigration officers, it was consi...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Society Of Lloyds v Twinn & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 23, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 308





CHBKF 1999/0660/B3 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHBKF 1999/0659/B2 
CHANCERY DIVISION 

Thursday 23rd March 2000 

Before:- 

THE VICE-CHANCELLOR: 

The Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Scott 

The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Chadwick 

The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Buxton 


B E T W E E N:- 


_________________________ 

(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
_________________________ 

Mr J. Briggs instructed by The Society of Lloyds for the Appellant 
Ms C. Mackenzie-Smith instructed by Geoffrey George Twinn and Gail Sally Anne Twinn for the Respondents 
_________________________ 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 





The Vice-Chancellor: 
1. This is an appeal by the Society of Lloyd's (Lloyd's) against the judgment of Jacob J., given on 11 May 1999. The respondents to the appeal are Mr and Mrs Twinn. They are, or were, Lloyd's Names. 

2. On 12 July 1998 Lloyd's served on Mr and Mrs Twinn statutory demands. A separate statutory demand was served on each. The statutory demands called for payment of sums said to be owing by them to Lloyd's under the so-called Reconstruction and Renewal Agreement entered into between Lloyd's and each of the Names who accepted the terms on offer. No application to set aside the statutory demands was made. Nor was payment made. So, on 23 September 1998 Lloyd's petitioned for bankruptcy orders to be made against Mr and Mrs Twinn. There was a separate petition against each of them. The petition against Mr Twinn alleged an indebtedness to Lloyd's of £1,018,832. Paragraph 2 of the petition said this:- "2. The debtor is justly and truly indebted to us in the aggregate sum of £1,018,832 being the amount due to us pursuant to the terms of Settlement Agreement concluded between us and the debtor in 1996 and payable by Noon on 30 September 1996 whereby the debtor is deemed to be an "Accepting Name". By a letter dated 27 June 19...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
T v Chase Farm Hospital, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 17, 2000, [2000] EWHC 645 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL 
NO: CO/1411/00 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 


Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

17th May 2000 


B e f o r e: 

MR JUSTICE OWEN 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

D.T. 

-v- 


CHASE FARM HOSPITAL 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph notes of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG 
Telephone No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

MR K GLEDHILL (instructed by Bell, Wright & Dallman, Gainsborough, Lincolnshire DN21 2DF) appeared on behalf of the Applicant 
MR A MOON (instructed by Bevan Ashford, London) appeared on behalf of the Respondent MR J MAURICI (instructed by Tre...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
F & I Services Ltd, R (On The Application Of) v Customs & Excise, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 14, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 327




Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2A 2LL 

Friday 14th April 2000 
B e f o r e 

THE HON. MR JUSTICE CARNWATH 

R -V- COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE 
EX PARTE F & I SERVICES LTD 

AND 

F & I SERVICES LIMITED 
-V- 
COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE 

__________ 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
__________ 

Mr Michael Kent QC and Mr Rupert Anderson (instructed by Solicitors of HM Customs and Excise New Kings Beam House 22 Upper Ground London SE1 9PJ) appeared on behalf of HM Commissioners of Customs and Excise. 

Mr Roderick Cordara QC and Miss Perdita Cargill-Thompson (instructed by Messrs Hutchinson Mainprice & Co, 80- Ebury Street London SW1W 9QD appeared on behalf of F & I Services Ltd 
__________ 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 



The Hon. Mr Justice Carnwath: 

Part I - The Appeal 
Introduction 

I have before me an appeal from a decision of the VAT Tribunal (Mr Nicol and Mr Khan) dated 26th February 1999. (The related application for judicial review against the Commissioners of Customs and Excise will be considered in Part II.) The facts relevant to the appeal are fully set out in the Tribunal's decision and it is unnecessary to do more than summarise them. 
The appeal concerned a proposed scheme, whereby books of vouchers would be sold to car dealers for them to offer to purchasers of cars. Each voucher was for a specified sum which could be used towards the purchase of goods or services with a named retailer (for instance The Sock Shop or Harvester Restaurants), or of mechanical breakdown insurance provided through the car dealer. The total nominal value of the vouchers in each book was approximately £2,200. They were sold to car dealers for the price of £10.40 each, and by the car dealers to their customers at a nominal price of £300, included as part of the overall price of the car (there is a dispute whether it represents the true price for the vouchers). The scheme was devised by the appellants ("F&I") who had an established business relationship with a car dealer network. They arranged for a company called Entertainment Publications Ltd ("EP") to design and produce the voucher booklet and to contract with the retailers named in the vouchers. It was accepted by F&I that VAT was chargeable on the supply of books to the car-dealers, but it was hoped to avoid...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Atkins v Director Of Public Prosecutions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 08, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 302,[2000] 2 All ER 425,[2000] 1 WLR 1427,[2001] 1 WLR 1427


- 28 - 




Case No: CO/3417/99 
CO/3002/99 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 
DIVISIONAL COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Wednesday 8 March 2000 

B e f o r e : 

LORD JUSTICE SIMON BROWN 
and 
MR JUSTICE BLOFELD 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Miss Helen Malcolm (instructed by Offenbach & Co of London W1V 2BA Solicitors) appeared for the Appellant, Dr Atkins 
Mr Peter Blair (instructed by Nile Arnall of Bristol BS1 5NA Solicitors) appeared for the Appellant, Mr Goodland 
Mr Robert Davies (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the DPP 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 


Lord Justice Simon Brown: These two appeals by way of case stated raise a number of interesting and difficult questions as to the proper construction and application of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (the PCA) and s.160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (the CJA), provisions concerned with indecent photographs of children. 

Antony Rowan Atkins was convicted by the Avon Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate at Bristol Magistrates Court on 27 May 1999 of 10 offences of having in his possession indecent photographs of children between specified dates in October 1997 contrary to s.160(1) of the CJA. On 25 May 1999 the Magistrate had upheld a submission that Dr Atkins had no case to answer in respect of 21 additional counts of making indecent photographs of children between the same dates contrary to s.1(1)(a) of the PCA. Dr Atkins appeals against his conviction on the 10 possession counts; the DPP appeals against Dr Atkins' acquittal on the 21 "making" counts. 

Peter John Goodland was convicted by the Avon Justices at Bristol Magistrates Court on 21 April 1999 on one count of having in his possession on 5 November 1998 an indecent pseudo-photograph of a child contrary to s.160(1) of the CJA. He now appeals against that conviction. 
Although the two appeals raise entirely different points (both coming by sheer chance from Bristol Magistrates Court), it has se...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Ebuki, R (on the application of) v London Borough Of Barking & Dagenham, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 05, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 426

CO/1066/2000 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2A 2LL 

Tuesday 5 December 2000 
B e f o r e 
Mr JACK BEATSON Q.C. 

Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge 
THE QUEEN 
v 
MAYOR AND BURGESSES OF THE LONDON BOROUGH 
OF BARKING AND DAGENHAM 
EX PARTE 
(1) MAKILA EBUKI 
(2) BRANDON EBUKI (BY HIS MOTHER AND 
LITIGATION FRIEND MAKILA EBUKI) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Ms N Ulasi (instructed by Ulasi & Partners, Corbett Grove, N22 8DQ) appeared on behalf of the Claimant 
Mr M Cumming (instructed by Edell Jones & Lessers DX4701 East Ham) appeared on bahalf of the Defendant 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 

JACK. BEATSON Q.C.:- 

These judicial review proceedings are concerned with section 17 of the Children Act 1989 which imposes a general duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children by providing services for children in need. Section 17 provides: 
It shall be the general duty of every local authority (in addition to the other duties imposed on them by this Part)- 
to safeguard and promote the elfare of children within their area who are in need; and 
so far as is consistent with that duty, to promote the upbringing of such children by their families, 
by providing a range and level of serives appropriate to those children's needs. 
... (6) The services provided by a local authority in the ex...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Al-Fawwaz v The Governor Of Brixton Prison, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 30, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 424




Case No: CO/3833/99 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Thursday 30 November 2000 

B e f o r e : 

LORD JUSTICE BUXTON 
MR JUSTICE ELIAS 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr Edward Fitzgerald QC and Mr Keir Starmer (instructed by Raja & Partners for the Applicant) 
Mr James Lewis and Miss Saba Naqshbandi (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor for the Respondent) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 




Lord Justice Buxton: 
1. This the judgment of the court, to which both members have made substantial contributions. 
The basic facts and the issues 
2. The applicant Mr Al-Fawwaz is accused in proceedings before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York of conspiring with Usama bin Laden and others between 1 January 1993 and 27 September 1998 by agreeing that: 
a) citizens of the the USA would be murdered in the the USA and elsewhere; 
b) bombs would be planted and exploded at American embassies and other American installations; 
c) American officials would be killed in the Middle East and Africa; 
d) American soliders deployed in the United Nations peacekeeping missions would be murdered; 
e) American Diplomats and other internationally protected persons would be murdered. 
3. The category referred to of Internationally Protected Persons [IPP] is recognised by the [United Kingdom] Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978. That provides that any murder of an IPP outside the United Kingdom is justiciable within the United Kingdom, even if the accused is not a United Kingdom citizen. 4. The USA government's case alleges as follows. Bin Laden was the moving force in an Islamic terrorist organisation called Al-Qaida, devoted to violent opposition to, in particular, the USA. The organisation issued various Fatwahs or rulings, which members were obliged to obey, including rulings requiring the pursuit of jihad (holy war) against the USA. Since 1993 al Qaida had operated a cell in Kenya. In 1994 it created an organisation in London called the Advice and Reform Committee [ARC], which purported to be devoted to peaceful activities against breaches of human rights in Arab countries, but which was in fact the London organisation of the conspiracy. Amongst the alleged fruits of this conspira...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Higher Education Statistics Agency Ltd & Customs & Excise, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 28, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 311




Case no: co/1268/99 
In the HIGH Court of JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 
Royal Courts of justice 
Strand, London, wc2a 2ll 

Tuesday 28 March 2000 
Before: 

thE HON MR JUSTICE MOses 
BETWEEN: 

Higher education statistics agency limited 
Appellant 
And 

The commissioners of custom and excise 
RESPONDANT 
____________________ 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
____________________ 

MR RUPERT BALDRY (instructed by messrs willans/ Gloucester GL50 1RH) appeared on behalf of the Appellant. 
MR PETER MANTLE and MR OWAIN THOMAS (instructed by H.M. Customs and Exvise Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Respondent. 

____________________ 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 





Introduction 
In this appeal from a decision of the VAT and Duties Tribunal the issue is whether the Appellant, Higher Education Statistics Agency Ltd ("HESA") is liable to pay VAT when it purchased freehold premises at a public auction. The property was an asset of the business of the vendor, Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Plc ("RSA"). The sale was the transfer of part of RSA's business as a going concern; the property was rent...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 

Godfrey v Conwy County Borough Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 13, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 443

SMITH BERNAL 
CO/438/2000 
[2000] EWHC Admin 443 (14 November 2000) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
(DIVISIONAL COURT) 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Monday 13 November 2000 

B e f o r e: 

LORD JUSTICE ROSE 

-and- 

MR JUSTICE MOSES 

- - - - - - - 

GODFREY 


-v- 


CONWY COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL 

- - - - - - 

(Computer-aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited 
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG 
Telephone No: 0171-421 4040/0171-404 1400 
Fax No: 0171-831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 

- - - - - - 

MR C HALE (instructed by DP HARDING & CO SOLICITORS, 220 WALTON BRECH RD, LIVERPOOL L4 ORQ) appeared on behalf of the Claimant. 
MR A THOMAS (instructed by CONWY COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL) appeared on behalf of the Defendant. 


J U D G M E N T 1. LORD JUSTICE ROSE: This is an appeal by way of case stated against a decision of the Chester Crown Court who dismissed an appeal from the County of Conwy Justices sitting at Abergele on 21st December 1998. The Crown Court decision was on 15th September 1999. 2. The case conce...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
M L, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Heal, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 11, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 397


- 18 - 



Case No: CO/4858/1999 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 


Date: 11 October 2000 

B e f o r e : 

THE HON MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER 




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr Richard Gordon QC & Fenella Morris(instructed by Peter Edwards & Co for the Applicant) 
Mr Philip Sales (instructed by The Department of Health for the Respondent) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright 



Mr Justice Scott Baker: 
The Applicant is a patient at Rampton Hospital. He seeks to challenge Health Service Circular HSC 1999/160 dated 23 July 1999 which sets out Directions and Guidance for visits by children to patients in high security hospitals namely Ashworth, Broadmoor and Rampton. Patients in these hospitals suffer from mental disorders and need to be treated and cared for in conditions of special security because of their dangerous, violent or criminal tendencies. 
The statement of Jennifer Anne Gray sets out in detail the background to this challenge and the circumstances leading to the promulgation of the circular. Section 4 of the National Health Service Act 1977 requires the Secretary of State for Health to provide special hospitals for detained mentally disordered patients. There are three such hospitals of which Rampton, with which this case is directly concerned, has a catchment area that comprises Yorkshire and parts of eastern and central England. It has an average patient population of around 450. Patients are housed in high security wards and the average stay is 7½ years, although some patients remain a good deal longer. Ov...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Tesco Stores Ltd v Secretary Of State For Environment, Transport & Regions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 25, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 349



Case no: CO/2297/2000 
IN THE high court of justice 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 



Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Thursday 21st December 2000 

Before: 

The honourable mr justice richards 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Tesco stores limited 
-v- 
the secretary of state for the environment, transport and the regions 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 



Mr P Clarkson QC and Mr S White (Instructed by Berwin Leighton solicitors, Adelaide House, London Bridge, London, EC4A 9HA) on behalf of the Claimant 
Ms N Lieven (Instructed by Treasury Solicitor London,SW1H 9JS) on behalf of the Defendant 


Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 


Crown Copyright © 
MR JUSTICE RICHARDS: 
This is a claim by Tesco Stores Ltd ("Tesco") under s.288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 challenging a decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions contained in a letter dated 25 May 2000. By that decision, made on a call-in under s.77 of the 1990 Act, the Secretary of State refused planning permission for a proposed development of a supermarket on the site of a former bus depot at Quinton, Birmingham. 
The application was for outline planning permission. The total area of the application site was some 2.4 ha, the gross floorspace of the proposed store was 3215 m2 (1910 m2 net) and provision was made for 284 parking spaces associated with the store. The proposed store was an out-of-centre development. Centres within the store's catchment area included Quinton, Halesowen, Bearwood, Blackheath and Harborne. 
The local planning authority resolved to grant permission subject to conditions and a s.106 agreement, but the Secretary of State then called the application in. The inspector, after holding a public inquiry, submitted his report on 21 September 1999. In that report he recommended that permission be granted subject to conditions. In his decision letter the Secretary of State disagreed with a number of the conclusions reached by his inspector and rejected the inspector's recommendation. 
The basis of challenge to the Secretary of State's decision is fourfold: 
that he failed adequately or at all to state what were his conclusions on the need for the development in terms of scale and location; that he failed adequately or at all to state how he applied the sequential approach in the light of his conclusion as to need and as to the centres in which the claimant...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Braiwaite v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 17, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 306


- 1 - 



Case No: CO 3435/98 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE 

Chester Crown Court 
The Castle, Chester CH1 2AN 


Monday 17 March 2000 


B e f o r e : 

THE HON MR JUSTICE FORBES 



(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 



Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 

Mr Justice FORBES: 

INTRODUCTION 
Gregory and Martin Braithwaite (the "Applicants") are the freehold owners of approximately 3.6 hectares of agricultural land ("the Braithwaite land"), situated to the west of Pastures Road on the eastern edge of Mexborough and sandwiched between a residential area to its north-west and a sewage treatment works to its south-east. The Respondent, Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council ("the Council"), is the relevant local Planning Authority for the area in question. 

The Braithwaite land, with the addition of a further small area of land not owned by the Applicants, forms a parcel of land to which I shall hereafter refer as "the site". In these proceedings, which are brought under Section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ("the 1990 Act"), the Applicants seek an Order that Policy RL1 of the Doncaster Unitary Development Plan ("the UDP": adopted on 21 July 1998) be quashed, insofar as it relates to the site, and that the Proposals Map of the UDP be amended accordingly. 

The Legal Framework 
Part II of the 1990 Act contains the relevant statutory provisions which empowered the Council to prepare the UDP for its area. Section 13 of the 1990 Act makes provision for public participation, including the deposit of the plan for inspection and objection. Section 13 (6) requires that there be consideration of objections duly made. By Section 16 (1), where objections have been made to the deposit plan, the local planning authority (i.e. in this case, the Council) is empowered to cause a local Inquiry to be held for the purpose of considering those objections. 

Regulation 16 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Regulations 1991 ("the 1991 Regulations") provides, so far as material: 
(1) Where a local planning authority cause a local inquiry or other hearing to be held..... the authority shall, after considering the report of the person holding the inquiry, ... prepare a statement of: 

(a) the decisions they have reached in the light of the report and any recommendations contained in the report; and 

(b) the reasons for those decisions." 

(4) Where the report of the person holding the inquiry ... contains recommendations that the statutory plan proposals should be modified in a manner specified...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Adewole v Special Adjudicator & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 27, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 309

1 
Case no: co/1268/99 
In the HIGH Court of JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 
Royal Courts of justice 
Strand, London, wc2a 2ll 

Monday 27 March 2000 

Before: 

thE HON MR JUSTICE MOses 

ADERMI OLADELE ADEWOLE 
Appellant 
And 
sPECIAL ADJUDICATOR 
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT 
RESPONDANT 
____________________ 

(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2HD 
Tel No:    0171 421 4040   0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
____________________ 

Stephanie Harrison (instructed by Tyndallwodes, Windsor House, Temple Row, Birmingham, B2 52S for the Appellant) 
Ashley Underwood (instructed by The Treasury Solicitors for the Respondent) 
____________________ 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 
Crown Copyright © 








Lord Justice Schiemann :- 
Mr Adewole is an asylum seeker from Nigeria. He sought asylum on arrival here in October 1998. He was interviewed. His application was rejected by l...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
McNally, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Education & Employment, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 27, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 380

2 

McNally 
CO/2182/1999 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
CROWN OFFICE LIST 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 


Date: 27th July 2000 

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW 

B e f o r e : 

THE HON MR JUSTICE LANGLEY 


Between: 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Ms E. Grey (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor for the Respondent) 
Mr T. Straker QC (instructed by Messrs Stanley Monaghan for the Metropolitan Borough of Bury) 
Miss. A. Weston (instructed by Messrs Thompsons for the Applicant) 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 
Crown Copyright 


INTRODUCTION 
This is a difficult case which has rightly given rise to serious concern on the part of the Applicant, a teacher, the Governors of the School (Woodhey High School) at which he worked, the local Education Authority, the Metropolitan Borough of Bury in which the School is situated and the Respondent Secretary of State. 

BACKGROUND The Applicant has taught at the School for several years. In 1995 an...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

Year 2001 
Year 2001

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Baker v Secretary Of State For Environment, Transport & Regions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 23, 2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 585



Case No: CO/3226/2000 
[2001] EWHC Admin 39 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINSTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Friday 26th January 2001 

B e f o r e : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ELIAS 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr Robert Fookes for the Claimants) 
(Mr Timothy Corner for the Defendants) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

JUDGMENT 


(As approved by the Court) 















Mr Justice Elias : 
Background. 
1. This is an appeal under section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ("the 1990 Act") against the decision of an Inspector appointed by the First Defendant, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, in which the Inspector dismissed the Appellants' appeal against an enforcement notice served by the second defendant, the North Wiltshire District Council, the local planning authority. 2. The enforcement...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Clingham, R (on the application of) v Marylebone Magistrates Court, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 18, 2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 582



Case No: CO/4441/2000 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
COURT OF APPEAL (QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION - DIVISIONAL COURT) 
ON APPEAL FROM David Kennett Brown D.J. 
sitting as a magistrate 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Thursday 11th January 2001 

B e f o r e : 

LORD JUSTICE SCHIEMANN 
MR. JUSTICE POOLE 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 , Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

MR. FRASER (instructed by Peter Kandler & Co Solicitors, 60Golborne Road, London, W10 5PR) for the Appellant. 
MR, R. BANWELL (instructed by Director of Legal Services, Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea, Town Hall, Hornton Street, London, W8 7N8) for the Respondent. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Judgment As Approved by the...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Payne, R (on the application of) v Caerphilly County Borough Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 04, 2002, [2002] EWHC 866 (Admin),[2002] 17 EG 155,[2002] PLCR 25

SMITH BERNAL 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 866 (Admin) 
CO/3891/2001 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
(THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT) 


Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Date Friday, 4th April 2002 


B e f o r e: 

MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN 

- - - - - - - 

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF CLIVE PAYNE 

-v- 

CAERPHILLY COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL 

- - - - - - - 

(Computer-aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 
190 Fleet Street, 
London EC4A 2AG 
Telephone No:    020-7421 4040   020-7421 4040 
Fax No: 020-7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 

- - - - - - - 

The Claimant appeared in person. 

MR JARMAN (instructed by the Legal Department of Caerphilly County Court) appeared on behalf of the Defendant. 


J U D G M E N T 
Introduction 
1. MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN: This application for judicial review is concerned with the manner in which the Defendant Council dealt with an application for approval of conditions (the application) made by the claimant under the Environment Act 1995 (the 1995 Act). 
The facts 
2. The application, dated 15th December 2000, was in the following terms (so far as material for present purposes): 
``1. The mineral site to which this application relates is the land at Nelson Road, Senghenydd, Caerphilly formerly the tipping ground of the Universal and Windsor Collieries, more particularly delineated on the map or plan enclosed and attached to this application and edged in red on that map or plan. 
2. The APPLICANT is the owner of the land described above and delineated on the map or plan attached to this application. 
3. The 'RELEVANT PLANNING PERMISSIONS' relating to the site are as follows- 
(a) The permission granted by the Caerphilly Urban District Council to the National Coal Board on the 30th day of MARCH 1955 [Code Number 1722]; and 
(b) The permission granted by the Caerphilly Urban District Council to Mr Cyril James Ludlow on the 10th day of August 1961 [Code Number 4240]. 
4:THE CONDITIONS TO WHICH THE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE PERMISSIONS REFERRED TO SHOULD BE SUBJECT. 
PERMISSION (a) 
Conditions 
1. Any buildings or works authorised by this permission shall be removed, and any use of the land authorised by this permission shall be discontinued, not later than the 22 FEBRUARY 2024. 2. The materials to be disposed of on the s...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

[align=left] 
La Rocca, R (on the application of) v Social Security Commissioner & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 11, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2021 (Admin)


Case No: CO/5339/2001 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 2021 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Friday, 11th October 2002 

Before : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE LIGHTMAN 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between : 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG Tel No: 020 7421 4...
[/align]

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Wilkinson v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 25, 2002, [2002] STI 234,[2002] STC 347,[2002] BTC 97,[2002] EWHC 182 (Admin)


Case No: CO/970/2001 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 182 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Thursday 14th February 2002 
B e f o r e : 

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOSES 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Miss Dinah Rose and Mr. Philip Baker (instructed by Liberty for the Claimant) 

Mr. Timothy Brennan QC and Miss Ingrid Simler (instructed by the Solicitor of Inland Revenue for the Defendant) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 
Crown Copyright © 


Mr Justice Moses: 

INTRODUCTION 

The claimant is a widower whose wife died on 23 June 1999. By letter dated 13 November 2000, he claimed from the Inland Revenue a sum equivalent to Widow's Bereavement Allowance. He described it as a "widower's bereavement payment". Under Section 262 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 ("ICTA") an allowance known as Widow's Bereavement Allowance ("WBA") is available to a widow for the year of assessment in which her husband dies, and the following year. Section 262 makes no express provision for any equivalent reduction in income tax to widowers. By Section 34 of the Finance Act 1999 WBA was abolished in relation to deaths occurring on or after 6 April 2000. 
This claim raises issues similar to those raised in the applications of Hooper, Withey and others. Although I heard argument before hearing that case, I have drafted this judgment after drafting the judgment in that case. This judgment should be ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Leung v Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 05, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1358 (Admin)



Case No: CO/4939/2001 
NEUTRAL CITATION NUMBER: [2002] EWHC 1358 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Friday 5 July 2002 
B e f o r e : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SILBER 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No: 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr. Richard McManus QC and Mr. Adam Solomon (instructed by Hugh Cartwright and Amin for the Claimant) 
Mr. Timothy Ward (instructed by Mills & Reeve of Cambridge for the Defendant) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 




Mr Justice Silber: 

Introduction 

Wing Kew Leung ("the claimant") challenges the decision of Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine ("the college") to classify him as an overseas student, rather than as a home student, for the purpose of the Education (Fees and Awards) Regulations 1997 ("the Regulations"). The significance of that classification is that the Regulations permit certain educational institutions, including the college, to charge higher fees for those students, who have been classified as overseas students rather than home students under the Regulations. Those who are regarded as home students for fee charging purposes include those who are settled in the United Kingdom and who also meet the residence conditions in Paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 of the Regulations. 

A condition in Paragraph 9 of the Schedule of the Regulations, which is of central and crucial significance in determining the status of the claimant in this case, provides that a person meets the residence conditions in Paragraph 9 which, with my emphasis added, provides that:- 

"(b) [the student's] residence in the United Kingdom.. has not during any part of [the three year period preceding the relevant date].. been wholly or mainly for the purpose of receiving full-time education". 

The Regulations make it clear that "the relevant date" for determining a student's status for classification of the fee purposes is 1 September, 1 January or 1 April, closest to the beginning of the first term of the student's course (Regulation 4(6)). In the case of the claimant, it is common ground between the parties that first, the relevant date for determining his status was 1 September 2000 and second, that his fee paying classification for the duration of his course was settled once and for all by the determination of his status as on that date. Mr. McManus QC, who appears with Mr. Adam Solomon for the claimant, says that if the claimant had been classified as a home student rather than as an overseas student, he would have saved about £9,000 in each year of his course at the college. In order to understand the rival submissions, it is necessary now to set out in outline some of the relevant chronology leading up to the making of this application. 

The Chronology 

The claimant was born in Hong Kong in December 1980. He, together with the rest of his family, was granted British citizenship in May 1995, which was the year when his parents left the United Kingdom where they had worked since 1972 in order to return to Hong Kong. They retained their property in London at 33 College Road, Wembley, which was occupied by the claimant's aunt. The parents of the claimant retained contact with the United Kingdom and they visited this country every summer. The claimant's older brother Yu Kew Leung ("Yu") left Hong Kong to live in the United Kingdom in August 1990 and in May 1995, he became permanently settled in this country. 

In August 1995, when the claimant was fourteen, he left Hong Kong where he had previously been at school to come to the United Kingdom, where he enrolled in September 1995 at Merchant Taylor's School in Northwood as a boarder. Shortly after the claimant arrived in this country, his parents purchased a house in Northwood ("the Northwood house"), which was occupied by Yu, the claimant and his aunt, who was also the claimant's guardian. Although he lived very close to Merchant Taylor's School, he has explained that he was a boarder there because his parents were keen for him to experience communal life. 
In 1996, Yu commenced a three-year Biochemistry degree course at the college and he was class...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
N, R (on the application of) v M & Ors, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, September 24, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1911 (Admin)


Case No: CO/2516/2002 
NEUTRAL CITATION NUMBER: [2002] EWHC 1911 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Tuesday 24 September 2002 
B e f o r e : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SILBER 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Mr. Stephen Solley QC and Mr. Kris Gledill (instructed by David Turner & Co for the claimant) 
Mr. Jeremy Hyam (instructed by Capsticks for the first and second defendants) 
Mr. David Forsdick (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor for the third defendant) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
JudgmentSilber J: 

Outline of the Case 

Ms. N (``the claimant'') has been a patient at X Hospital since January 1999 and she seeks to judicially review a decision of Dr. M, a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist at X Hospital, which was to administer to the claimant depot (i.e. by injection) anti-psychotic medicine for the prevention or for the alleviation of her psychotic illness. The claimant did not and does not consent to this treatment. A challenge is also made by the claimant to the subsequent decision of Dr. O, another Consultant Psychiatrist, who acted as a Second Opinion Appointed Doctor (``SOAD'') as required by the Mental Health Act 1983 (``the Act'') and who in that capacity on 17 May 2002 authorised the administration of the proposed treatment to the claimant. The parties have asked me to continue an order made by Goldring J that in this judgment, initials should be used in place of the names of the claimant, the hospitals and doctors, other than those who acted as experts. 

Goldring J gave permission to the claimant to pursue her claims for judicial review against Dr. M as the first defendant and against his employers, a Health Authority Trust (``the Trust'') as the second defendants, as well as against Dr. O, the third defendant. The claimant contends in her Claim Form that ``the SOAD has acted unfairly in reaching a decision by following a procedure which did not allow the [claimant]'s views to be fully represented'' and that ``any proposed medication of the [claimant] is unlawful and/or unreasonable, being in breach of Article 3 and/or 8 [of the European Convention on Human Rights (``the Convention'')]''. This case raises important issues of how the court should deal procedurally and substantively with challenges made by patients to decisions for their treatment against their wishes in the light of the Act as read in accordance with Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. 

The claimant relies on the evidence of a consultant psychiatrist Dr. Lock to challenge the decision of Dr. O, and the prior decision of Dr. M to require this treatment. Dr. Lock considers that the claimant has the capacity to make her decision to refuse this treatment and he believes that the case in favour of administering this proposed treatment to the claimant does not reach the required threshold for it to be permitted. The defendants dispute these contentions and they rely on the evidence of Dr. O and Dr. M, as well as that of Dr. Janet Parrott, another consultant forensic psychiatrist, who takes the view that first the claimant requires depot neuroleptic medication as she suffers from a psychotic illness and that second the claimant currently does not have the capacity to make a decision on the desirability of receiving this form of treatment. A fundamental dispute between Dr. Lock and the defendants is whether the proposed treatment is necessary for the claimant and that issue arises because Dr. Lock for the claimant disagrees with the views advocated by Drs. M, O and Parrott that the claimant is suffering from a psychotic condition. 

Before considering the evidence, it is appropriate to refer to the definition of ``psychosis'' given in the American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Disorders (DSM-IV), which all parties accept as being a Recognised Specification Manual and which is that the term ``psychosis'':- 

``encompasses those serious mental disorders which include schizophrenia, major depression, alcohol withdrawal delirium and others where the individual ``loses touch with reality''. Hallucinations and delusions are generally considered psychotic symptoms. The individuals experiencing them may be described as ``psychotic''''. 

To appreciate the nature and scope of the dispute, it is necessary to understand the statutory provisions contained in the Act to which I now turn. 

The statutory provisions 

Section 63 of the Act provides, with my emphasis added, that:- 
``The consent of a patient shall not be required for any medical treatment given to him for the mental disorder from which he is suffering, not being treatment fall...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Dube v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 15, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2032 (Admin)

Case No: CO/5095/2001 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 2032 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Tuesday 15 October 2002 
Before : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KEITH 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between : 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Ms S Harrison (instructed by Winstanley Burgess) for the Claimant 
Mr A Hunter (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendant 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 


Mr Justice Keith : 
Introduction 1. The Claimant comes from Zimbabwe. He is a member of the Ndebele tribe. He claims that he was persecuted as a result of his membership of a pressure group, the Umkhosi Kazulu, which seeks compensation for victims of atrocities against the Ndebele tribe in Matabeleland in the 1980s. Eventually he fled from Zimbabwe, and arrived in the United Kingdom on 13 August 2001. On his arrival, he applied for permission to enter the United Kingdom as a visitor, but when his application was refused, he claimed asylum, c...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
London Borough of Croydon v Burdon, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, August 06, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1961 (Admin)

CO/2597/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1961 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
(THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT) 
Royal Courts of Justice 
The Strand 
London WC2 

Tuesday 6 August 2002 
B e f o r e: 

HIS HONOUR JUDGE WILKIE 

- - - - - - - 

LONDON BOROUGH OF CROYDON 


-v- 


WILLIAM BURDON 

- - - - - - 

(Computer-aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited 
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG 
Telephone No: 0171-421 4040/0171-404 1400 
Fax No: 0171-831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 

- - - - - - 

MR S TAYLOR (instructed by LONDON BOROUGH OF CROYDON LEGAL DEPARTMENT) appeared on behalf of the Claimant. 

MR P NOBLE (instructed by WRIGHT SON & PEPPER, LONDON WC1R 5JF) appeared on behalf of the Defendant. 

- - - - - - 

J U D G M E N T SMITH BERNAL 1. HIS HONOUR JUDGE WILKIE: This is an appeal by way of case stated by the London Borough of Croydon as prosecuting authority against the dismissal by the Croydon Magistra...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 

London Borough of Croydon v Burdon, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, August 06, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1961 (Admin)

CO/2597/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1961 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
(THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT) 
Royal Courts of Justice 
The Strand 
London WC2 

Tuesday 6 August 2002 
B e f o r e: 

HIS HONOUR JUDGE WILKIE 

- - - - - - - 

LONDON BOROUGH OF CROYDON 


-v- 


WILLIAM BURDON 

- - - - - - 

(Computer-aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited 
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG 
Telephone No: 0171-421 4040/0171-404 1400 
Fax No: 0171-831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 

- - - - - - 

MR S TAYLOR (instructed by LONDON BOROUGH OF CROYDON LEGAL DEPARTMENT) appeared on behalf of the Claimant. 

MR P NOBLE (instructed by WRIGHT SON & PEPPER, LONDON WC1R 5JF) appeared on behalf of the Defendant. 

- - - - - - 

J U D G M E N T SMITH BERNAL 1. HIS HONOUR JUDGE WILKIE: This is an appeal by way of case stated by the London Borough of Croydon as prosecuting authority against the dismissal by the Croydon Magistra...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Towry Law Financial Services Plc & Ors, R (on the application of) v Gorman, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 25, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1603 (Admin)

1 

Case No: CO/17212002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1603 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
48/49 Chancery Lane 
London, WC2A 1JR 


Thursday 25 July 2002 
Before: 

MR GEORGE BARTLETT QC 
(sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) 

------------------------- 
Between: 
THE QUEEN 

-on the application of- 

TOWRY LAW FINANCIAL SERVICES PLC 
Claimant 
- and - 

THE FINANCIAL OMBUDSMAN SERVICE LIMITED 
Defendant 
- and - 

MRS P GORMAN 
Interested Party 
------------------------- 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
------------------------- 

Mr Adam Tolley, Instructed by Squire & Co, appeared for the Claimant 
Mr James Strachan, instructed by Georgina Surry, Financial Ombudsman Service for the Defendant. 
------------------------- 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 
MR GEORGE BARTLETT QC: The only outstanding issue in this application for judicial review is the question of costs. The application sought judicial review of a decision of an ombudsman in the Financial Ombudsman Service. The decision was given on a complaint by the interested party, Mrs Gorman, to the Personal Investment Authority Ombudsman Bureau (whose functions are now exercised by FOS) about advice given by the claimant to Mrs Gorman's late husband in relation to certain retirement annuity contracts. Permission was granted by Burton J on 28 May 2002. In its acknowledgment of service, filed on 1 May 2002, the defendant had said that it did not intend to contest the claim. In her acknowledgment of service, dated 5 May 2002, Mrs Gorman said that she did intend to contest the claim; but on 7 June 2002 she wrote to the court to say that she no longer intended to do so. The claimant now seeks an order that its costs should be paid by the defendant and/or by Mrs Gorman. Mrs Gorman's late husband was a ba...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Yeter, R (on the application of) v Enfield, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 29, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2185 (Admin)

Case No: CO/3216/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 2185 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Tuesday 29th October 2002 
Before : 

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE RAFFERTY 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between : 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr Martin Hodgson (instructed by Clinton Davis Pallis) for the Claimant 
Mr Wayne Beglan (instructed by Philip Devonald) for the Defendant 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 




Mrs Justice Rafferty : 1. Consequent ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Phillips v Director of Public Prosecutions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 28, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2093 (Admin)

Case No: CO/3699/2001 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 2093 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
DIVISIONAL COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Monday 28 October 2002 
Before : 

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD JUSTICE LATHAM 
and 
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE McCOMBE 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between : 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Rhodri THOMPSON QC (instructed by Marriott, Harrison) for the Appellant 
David PERRY & Natasha TAHTA (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) for the Respondent 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 

Mr Justice McCOMBE : 
1. This is an appeal by way of case stated from the decision of the Crown Court at Middle*** Guildhall wh...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Pearson, R (on the application of) v Driving and Vehicle Licensing Agency & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 06, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2482 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/1872/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 2482 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT LIST 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London, WC2 

Date: Wednesday, 6th November 2002 
B E F O R E: 

MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY 

- - - - - - - 

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF NIGEL PEARSON 
Claimant 
-v- 

DRIVING AND VEHICLE LICENSING AGENCY 
First Defendant 

and 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS 
Second Defendant 
- - - - - - - 
(Computer-Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
MR DAN SQUIRES (instructed by Tyndallwoods, Windsor House, Temple Row, Birmingham B2 5TS) appeared on behalf of the Claimant. 
MR CLIVE LEWIS (instructed by Treasury Solicitors, Queen Anne's Chambers, London SW1h 9JS) appeared on behalf of the Defendants. 
- - - - - - - 
J U D G M E N T 
1. MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY: On 23rd January 1997 the claimant pleaded guilty to an offence of driving with excess alcohol pursuant to section 5(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. He was fined £150 and subjected to a one-year disqualification from driving. His licence was obligatorily endorsed under section 44 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. 2. The provisions of two different statutes impact on the future significance of such a c...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Hammerton, R (on the application of) v London Underground Ltd., Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 08, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2307 (Admin)



Case No: CO/3697/02 
Neutral Citation No. [2002] EWHC 2307 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Friday, 8th November 2002 
Before : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE OUSELEY 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Between : 

(1) ENGLISH HERITAGE 
(2) THE PRINCE'S FOUNDATION 
(3) LONDON BOROUGH OF TOWER HAMLETS 
(4) LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY 
(5) RAILTRACK PLC (in Railway Administration) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Richard Clayton QC, Mr M. Edwards & Mr C Zwart (instructed by Richard Buxton & Co. Solicitors) for the Claimant 
Michael Barnes QC & Mr J. Greenhill (instructed by Frances Low Solicitor LUL) for the Defendant 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 


Mr Justice OUSELEY : 


Introduction 

1. London Underground Ltd's East London Line currently runs from New Cross and New Cross Gate northwards to Whitechapel. LUL proposes to construct the East London Line Extension ("ELLX") to Dalston where it would connect with the former Railtrack North London Line. 
2. The proposal was advanced through an application by LUL in 1993 for an Order under section 1 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 and deemed permission under section 90 (2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, together with applications, so far as material, for listed building consents under section 12(3A) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, ("LBCA"). 
3. These applications were considered at concurrent public Inquiries in 1994 by an Inspector who had the assistance of a listed buildings assessor. He recommended in favour of the applications. 
4. On 20th January 1997, the Secretary of State for Transport made the Order sought under the Transport and Works Act 1992, which came into force on 10th February 1997. This empowers the construction and maintenance of the ELLX and provides related powers dealing with land acquisition, highways and bridges, and vesting of lands in exchange for the acquisition of public open space. By a decision letter of 20th January 1997, he directed that planning permission be deemed to be granted for the development included in the Order, subject to various conditions. By a decision letter dated 14th January 1997, the Secretary of State for the Environment granted listed building consent, again subject to conditions. 

5. This case concerns the construction of ELLX over the Bishopsgate Goods Yard, an area of considerable historic interest and of importance in the development of the Victorian railway system in London. 

6. It is difficult to describe the Goods Yard without becoming embroiled in controversy because an issue at the heart of the case was whether it should be seen as one or several buildings or structures. The Bishopsgate Goods Yard began life in 1839 as Shoreditch Station, the terminus of the Eastern Counties Railway Company. It covers some 4 hectares fronting on to Shoreditch High Street, north of Liverpool Street Station which replaced it in 1875. After 1875 the passenger terminal became a goods yard serving East Anglia. LUL describes it as "a series of connected structures on two levels". English Heritage describe it as "a structure" of considerable architectural and historic importance to London and the local area. The tracks, platforms and station buildings including warehouses at the upper level were destroyed by fire in 1964. It is now covered in rubble and debris of varying depths. 
7. The viaducts and arches at the lower level were used as Bishopsgate low level station for passengers, but this closed in 1916; its structures were largely removed and there has subsequently been some commercial use of the arch space. 
8. The upper level is and was accessed by a ramp from Shoreditch High Street. The gateway and pillars at the entrance to the ramp from the High Street were listed before the inception of LUL's proposal. The extent of that listing was a matter in issue before me. The Goods Yard is supported by viaduct like structures including the Braithwaite Viaduct. This Viaduct is one of the oldest railway structures in the world and is the second oldest in London. Its designer, John Braithwaite, the chief engineer of the Eastern Counties Railway was also an early locomotive engineer. It runs east-west in the southern part of the Goods Yard. It was listed on 8th March 2002. The significance of that listing for the demolition of adjacent arches and viaducts was in issue before me. 9. LUL's proposed ELLX would involve the demolition of the Bishopsgate Goods Yard to the north of the Braithwaite Viaduct. LUL's works would retain the...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Levy v Environment Agency & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 30, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1663 (Admin)




Case No: CO/4765/2001 
NEUTRAL CITATION NUMBER: [2002] EWHC 1663 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Tuesday 30 July 2002 

B e f o r e : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SILBER 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Dr. David Wolfe (instructed by Bindmans for the Claimant) 
Mr. Jon Turner (instructed by The Environment Agency for the Defendant) 
Mr. Stephen Tromans (instructed by Clarks of Reading for the Interested Party) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 



Silber J: 

Outline of the case 

Mr. David Levy ("the claimant") seeks to challenge a decision of the Environment Agency ("the Agency"), which is contained in a Decision Document of August 2001 ("the Decision Document"), under which it granted a variation applied for in June 2000 ("the June 2000 application") by Blue Circle Industries plc ("Blue Circle") so as to permit the permanent use of scrap tyres as a substitute fuel at up to 24% thermal substitution at Blue Circle's cement works ("the cement works") at Westbury, Wiltshire. The claimant lives in the vicinity of the cement works and he is also founder of "The Air That We Breathe Group". He complains that the Agency failed to consider properly some of the environmental aspects of the June 2000 application. 

Permission to make this application was granted by Elias J. Blue Circle was served as an Interested Party and it has appeared by counsel on the hearing having previously adduced evidence. The Agency is joined by Blue Circle in resisting this application. The claimant has abandoned most of the grounds on which he obtained leave and he now relies on only three grounds. The Agency contends that the claimant still needs permission to pursue one of these grounds as I will explain. 

The background to this application 

In 1962, Blue Circle's Westbury works commenced its cement producing operations. In 1996, trials were conducted at the cement works using tyres as a substitute for fuel to prove that the use of such power was both practical and acceptable from an environmental aspect. The initial results were inconclusive and it became clear that further trials would be required to improve the conditions in the kilns and to prove that there could be an overall environmental benefit from the use of tyres. In 1997, Blue Circle applied for a variation to its Integrated Pollution Control authorisation, which was granted under a regime introduced by the Environmental Protection Act 1990 ("the 1990 Act"). 

Blue Circle was granted permission to conduct a further trial using tyres as substitute fuel up to a maximum 40% thermal substitution. The trial commenced on 1 June 1998. Subsequently, an enforcement notice was issued by the Agency on 11 June 1998 which suspended the trial until management controls for the trial had been revised to the satisfaction of the Agency. The trial was allowed to resume on 22 March 1999 but then only after the Agency was satisfied that the concerns that caused it to issue this enforcement notice had been adequately addressed. At the time of the 1997 application, the consultation draft of the Agency' Substitute Fuels Protocol was followed. It has now been approved and it was also followed in the course of Blue Circle's application, which led to the decision under challenge in this case. 

In December 1998, the Agency completed the statutory regular four yearly review of all the conditions required for the authorisation of the Westbury works of Blue Circle under section 6(6) of the 1990 Act, which I will explain in paragraph 15. On 16 June 2000, the Agency set a range of new conditions in the authorisation for the Westbury works including a new emission limit as a result of the recommendations for that four year review and consequential work, including assessments of the most exacting emission limits that could be imposed after an extensive consultation exercise. 

During the previous trial conducted in 1998 and 1999, tests had been carried out while substituting conventional fuels with tyres up to a maximum thermal substitution level of 40%. In the June 2000 application, Blue Circle sought permission from the Agency to use tyres as substitute fuel up to 24% thermal substitution. By the Decision Document, the Agency granted the June 2000 application of Blue Circle but then only subject to a substantial number of significant conditions and it is this decision which is being challenged on this application. 
The Decision Document consists of 166 pages and it was prepared after a very lengthy consultation process, whic...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Smeaton v Secretary of State for Health, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 12, 2002, [2002] EWHC 610 (Admin)

Case No: CO/928/2001 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 610 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Thursday 18 April 2002 
Before : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUNBY 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between : 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr Richard Gordon QC, Mr James Bogle and Mr Martin Chamberlain (instructed by Coningsbys) for the Claimant 
Mr Kenneth Parker QC, Mr James Eadie and Mr Simon Hattan (instructed by the Office of the Solicitor to the Department) for the Secretary of State 
Mr David Anderson QC and Miss Jemima Stratford (instructed by CMS Cameron McKenna) for Schering Health Care Limited 
Ms Nathalie Lieven (instructed by Leigh Day & Co) for Family Planning Association 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 

Mr Justice Munby: 


1. This case raises medical and legal questions of great complexity, difficulty and interest. It raises also moral and ethical questions of great importance. But it is no exaggeration to say that the outcome of this case may potentially affect the everyday lives of hundreds of thousands, indeed millions, of ordinary men and women in this country. 
2. This judgment is necessarily very long. I have had to summarise and analyse a large mass of medical and legal material, much of it of consuming interest. But it is, I believe, vitally important that the law should be accessible to all and that those who wish to understand my decision should be able to do so without having to read the full judgment. Accordingly I begin this judgment with an overview which summarises the issues and my decision. I have used what I hope is plain and straightforward language, avoiding as much as possible in this part of my judgment all technical medical and legal language. 
OVERVIEW 
3. This case concerns the legality of the prescription, supply and use of the morning-after pill. 
4. The claimant, John Smeaton, who acts on behalf of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children ("SPUC"), says that such prescription or supply amounts in principle to a criminal offence under sections 58 and/or 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 ("the 1861 Act"). 
5. In reality the allegations which SPUC makes extend to this: that a woman who takes the morning-after pill is herself potentially committing a criminal offence under the 1861 Act. 
6. Furthermore, and whatever SPUC may say, these allegations of serious criminality which it makes extend to cover any form of birth control which may have the effect of discouraging a fertilised egg from implanting in the lining of the womb - that is to say, not merely the morning-after pill but also IUDs, the mini-pill, and even the pill itself. 
7. Put shortly, the effect of sections 58 and 59 of the 1861 Act, taken together with the relevant parts of the Abortion Act 1967, is that abortifacient substances - substances which cause miscarriage or abortion - may be administered only if two doctors certify that the conditions set out in the 1967 Act are satisfied. Otherwise, the use of such substances is in principle criminal. 
8. SPUC's case is that, whatever it may be called, the morning-after pill is not in fact a contraceptive. It is, says SPUC, an abortifacient, in other words it causes miscarriages. Accordingly, says SPUC, unless the procedures laid down by the 1967 Act are complied with the supply and use the morning-after pill may involve the commission of criminal offences. 
9. Compliance with the procedures laid down by the 1967 Act requires, as I have said, the involvement of two doctors. So if SPUC is right the use of the morning-after pill will in effect be lawful only if it has been prescribed by two doctors. 
10. In order to understand SPUC's argument I need to explain the relevant medical facts. Put very simply, there are two key stages in the biological process following ***ual intercourse: 
i) The first is fertilisation. This takes place after the man's sperm and the woman's egg have met in the fallopian tube. It is a process which commences hours, or even days, after ***ual intercourse. The process itself takes many hours. 
ii) The other key stage is implantation. This takes place after the fertilised egg has moved into the womb. It involves a process by which the fertilised egg physically attaches itself to the wall of the womb. The process does not start until, at the earliest, some four days after the commencement of fertilisation. The process of implantation itself takes some days. 11. Put in its simplest terms, SPUC's case is that any interference with a fertilised egg, if it leads to the loss of the egg, involves the procuring of a "misc...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Cardiff County Council, R (on the application of) v Commissioners for Customs and Excise, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 15, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2085 (Admin)




Case No: CO/3671/2001 
Neutral Citation no.: [2002] EWHC 2085 (Admin.) 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Tuesday 15 October2002 

Before: 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE STANLEY BURNTON 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 



THE QUEEN on the application of 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Roderick Cordara QC and David Scorey (instructed by Finers Stephens Innocent) for the Claimant 
Peter Mantle (instructed by the Solicitor for the Customs and Excise) for the Defendants 

Hearing dates: 17, 18, 19 July 2002 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
JUDGMENT : APPROVED BY THE COURT FOR HANDING DOWN (SUBJECT TO EDITORIAL CORRECTIONS) 
Mr Justice Stanley Burnton: 

Introduction 
1. This is my judgment on preliminary issues ordered to be determined by the consent order of Burton J, as limited by agreement between the parties. I was told that this is a test case, on which others depend. (Indeed, much of the correspondence before me relates not to the Claimant Council, but to Renfrewshire Council.) In order to understand the issues I have to determine, it is necessary to summarise the facts and refer to the relevant legislative provisions. 
The legislation in outline 
2. The EC Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes requires the economic activities of producers, traders and persons applying services to be subject to value added tax. Persons who independently carry on such activities are "taxable persons": see Article 4.1. Public Authorities are not taxable persons in respect of their activities as such. Article 4.5 of the Directive is as follows: 
"States, regional and local government authorities and other bodies governed by public law shall not be considered taxable persons in respect of the activities or transactions in which they engage as public authorities, even where they collect dues, fees, contributions or payments in connection with those activities or transactions. Howe...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Theophilus, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Lewisham, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 08, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1371 (Admin)


Case No: CO/1236/2002 
NEUTRAL CITATION NUMBER: [2002] EWHC 1371 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Monday 8 July 2002 
B e f o r e : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SILBER 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr. John Walsh (instructed by Straker Holford for the Claimant) 
Ms. Harini Iyengar (instructed by Ms. K. Nicholson for the Defendant) 
Mr. Martin Chamberlain (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor for the Interested Party) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 

Silber J: 

Introduction 

Ms. Abimbola Elizabeth Theophilus ("the claimant") seeks to judicially review a decision of the London Borough of Lewisham ("Lewisham") communicated to the claimant on 10 December 2001 that "Central Government funding through the Education (Student Support) Regulations is not available" for her LL. B. course at Griffith College in Dublin. Sir Oliver Popplewell sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge gave the claimant permission to make this application, which then included a claim to enforce an alleged legitimate expectation that she would receive funding as a result of a representation made to her by Lewisham. The claimant now also seeks to claim that Rule 5(4) of the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2001 ("the 2001 Regulations") contravenes Article 49 of the EC Treaty but she needs permission both to amend her claim form and to pursue that claim. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United Kingdom, who resides within the local authority area of Lewisham. In early 2001, the claimant first approached the Student Pupil Support Department of Lewisham to enquire whether she would receive student support if she studied law abroad. The claimant wished to study law abroad rather than in England because she had recently been through a stressful and traumatic episode in her personal life and she wished to make a fresh start. Her intention was to obtain a Bachelor of Laws degree and then to practise as a Barrister in England. 
The claimant was initially told by Lewisham that she would receive student support provided she studied anywher...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Defence, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 05, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2712 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/5429/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 2712 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
DIVISIONAL COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Thursday, 5 December 2002 
B E F O R E: 

LORD JUSTICE SIMON BROWN 
(Vice President of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division) 

MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY 

- - - - - - - 

- - - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
[/align]*
- - - - -...

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
D v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 19, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2805 (Admin)

CO/5036/2001 
Neutral Citation No.: [2002] EWHC 2805 (Admin.) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Thursday 19 December 2002 
Before: 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE STANLEY BURNTON 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between: 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Richard Gordon QC and Hugh Southey (instructed by Peter Edwards & Co) for the Claimant 
Nathalie Lieven (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendant 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
JudgmentMr Justice Stanley Burnton: 

Introduction 
1. This case concerns the inter-relationship of the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983 (``the MHA'') with those of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 in relation to discretionary life prisoners who have been made the subject of a transfer direction under section 47 of the MHA and a restriction direction under section 49 of that Act. The detention of such prisoners is subject to two statutory regimes, that of the MHA and that of penal legislation. Persons who are detained under either one of these regimes have a Convention and a statutory right to have the lawfulness of their detention reviewed by an impartial and independent tribunal, in the case of those detained under the Mental Health Act by a Mental Health Review Tribunal and in the case of discretionary life prisoners, after the expiration of the penal period of their sentence, by the Parole Board. Someone such as the Claimant, who is detained under both regimes, must have his case for his discharge from detention considered both by the tribunal and the Board, and both must consider that his continued detention is unnecessary if he is to be released. 2. The Claimant was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1989. His tariff, as it was then known, i.e. the minimum period of his detention, imposed for punishment and deterrence (the ``relevant part'' of his sentence for the purposes of section 34 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991), was determined to be 6 years, and it expired in 1...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Kumar, R (on the application of) v Republic of Germany, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 22, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1237 (Admin)

CO/380/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1237 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
(THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT) 
(THE DIVISIONAL COURT) 
Royal Courts of Justice 
The Strand 
London WC2 

Wednesday 22 May 2002 
B e f o r e: 

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY 

and 

MR JUSTICE GAGE 

- - - - - - - 

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF KUMAR 


-v- 


GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF GERMANY 

- - - - - - 
(Computer-aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited 
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG 
Telephone No: 0171-421 4040/0171-404 1400 
Fax No: 0171-831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - 

MR A CAMERON (instructed by WHITELOCK & STORRS SOLICITORS, WC1A 2LX) appeared on behalf of the Claimant. 

MISS H MALCOLM (instructed by THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE, LONDON DIVISION) appeared on behalf of the Defendant. 

- - - - - - 
J U D G M E N T 
SMITH BERNAL 
1. LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: Mr Justice Gage will give the first judgment. 
2. MR JUSTICE GAGE: This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus in extradition proceedings which have been concluded against the applicant. The three extradition crimes upon which he was committed are three offences of what, under English law, would be theft of Deutschmarks between January and March 1994. This is the second committal of the applicant in respect of these alleged crimes. 3. The applicant is now aged 51 and was born in Kittna in the Punjab, India. In 1962, aged 12, he came to this country and has lived here ever since. He married in November 1978 and has three children. On 6th August 2000 his wife died and he now lives in the family hom...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
T v Special Educational Needs Tribunal & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 18, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1474 (Admin)

Case No: CO/1105/2002 
Neutral Citation No.: [2002] EWHC 1474 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Thursday 18 July 2002 
Before : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE RICHARDS 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between : 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr John Friel (instructed by Bobbetts Mackan) for the Claimant 
Miss Elisabeth Laing (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the First Defendant 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 

Mr Justice Richards: 
1. This is an appeal against a decision of a Special Educational Needs Tribunal issued on 4 February 2002. The appellants, to whom I shall refer as "Mr and Mrs T", are the parents of a 5-year old boy whom I shall call "J". J is accepted to have special educational needs. He was diagnosed in December 2000 as functioning at the high end of the autistic spectrum. A statement of special educational needs was made by the local education authority, Wiltshire County Council, on 7 September 2001. In part 4 it provided that J should attend the North Wilts Centre for Autism based at the Charter School, Chippenham. Mr and Mrs T appealed to the Tribunal, opposing the placement specified in part 4 of the statement and contending that J should be taught at home using the "Lovaas" principle, with phased entry into mainstream school. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in respect of part 4. It is that decision against which Mr and Mrs T now appeal to this court...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor, R (on the application of) v G, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 31, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2043 (Admin)

CO/1827/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 2043 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT LIST 
The Royal Courts of Justice 
The Strand 
London 

Wednesday 31 July 2002 
Before: 

MR JUSTICE NEWMAN 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Between: 
THE QUEEN 
on the application of 

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT 
Claimant 
and: 
MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW TRIBUNAL 
Defendant 
and: 
P.G. 
Interested Party 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Transcript prepared from the Steno Notes 
of Smith Bernal Reporting Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2HD 
Tel:    0207 404 1400   0207 404 1400 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
MR M CHAMBERLAIN (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Claimant 
MR R DE MELLO (instructed by the Mental Health Review Tribunal) appeared on behalf of the Defendant 
MR S JAISRI (instructed by Blavo & Co, 1A Frederick Street, London WC1X) appeared on behalf of the Interested Party 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
JUDGMENTWednesday 31 July 2002 
JUDGMENT 1. MR JUSTICE NEWMAN: This is an application by the Secretary of State for the Home Department for judicial review. He seeks orders as follows: (a) a quashing order to quash the decision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal (London South Region) dated 12 March 2002, ordering the deferred conditional discharge of Mr Plinio G; and (b) a direction that the matter be remitted to a Mental Health Review Trib...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 



Davis & Ors, R (on the application of) v Financial Services Authority, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 18, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2997 (Admin)




Case No: CO/4196/2002 
[2002] EWHC 2997 (Admin) 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Date: 18th December 2002 

Before : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE LIGHTMAN 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
THE QUEEN 
on the application of 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

The Honourable Michael Beloff QC and Mr Pushpinder Saini (instructed by Denton Wilde Sapte, 5 Chancery Lane, Clifford's Inn, London EC4A 1BU) for the Claimants Mr Javan Herberg (instructe...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Berisha, R (on the application of) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 18, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1526 (Admin)



1 

Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1526 (Admin) 
No CO 5220/2001 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2A 2LL 

Thursday 18th July 2002 
B e f o r e: 

Mr Michael Supperstone, Q.C. 
(Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 
B e t w e e n : 
THE QUEEN 
ON THE APPLICATION OF 
BESIM BERISHA 
Claimant 
- and - 

IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL 
Respondent 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Mr Erun Waheed, Instructed by Fisher Jones Greenwood, Colchester, for the Claimant Miss Kristina Stern, In...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Birmingham Care Consortium, R (on the application of) & Ors v Birmingham City Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 17, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2188 (Admin)

CO/3653/2002 
Neutral Citation No.: [2002] EWHC 2188 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Thursday 17 October 2002 
Before: 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE STANLEY BURNTON 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

THE QUEEN on the application of 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr Robin Green (instructed by Wood Shawe & Co) for the Claimant 
Mr Christopher Baker (instructed by Birmingham Legal Services) for the Defendant 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 

Mr Justice Stanley Burnton: 

1. The Claimants in these proceedings are: 
(a) a consortium of nursing and care homes in Birmingham and the proprietors of a number of such homes; and 
(b) persons who were entitled to be placed in care homes by the Birmingham City Council and complained that their choice of care home had been unlawfully restricted by it. 
Unless otherwise indicated, my references below to "the Claimants" simpliciter are to the consortium and the proprietors of nursing and care homes only. I shall refer to the Claimants entitled to placements in nursing or care homes as "the individual Claimants". Unless otherwise indicated, references in my judgment to care homes include nursing homes. 
2. In 1999 the Council entered into contracts with a large number of care homes on standard terms, including the terms as to charges and duration. The contract period commenced on 1 April 1999 and expired on 30 June 2002. The contract included provision for review of the contract price by the Council; the last review took effect in 2001. It provided that after expiry it would continue to have effect in relation to existing residents whose placements had not been terminated by the Council or the care home, unless it was replaced by a new contract. 3. In the period before the expiry of the contracts, consultations and negotiations took place between the Council and the care homes with which it contracted, including the Claimants, concerning, principally, the rates to be ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Dewa v Westminster City Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 22, 2002, [2002] EWHC 320 (Admin)

Case No: CO/3455/2001 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 320 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
at Wolverhampton Crown Court 

Wednesday 13th March 2002 
Before : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KEITH 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between : 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr Rajeev Thacker (instructed by Alan Edwards & Co.) for the Claimant 
Mr David Warner (instructed by the Director of Legal Services, Westminster City Council) for the Defendant 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 

Mr Justice Keith: 
Introduction 1. This claim for judicial review raises a short but novel point on the proper construction of section 352 of the Housing Act 1985. The claim relates to the powers of a local housing authority over houses in multiple occupation. In particular, it concerns the extent to which a local housing authority may require works to be...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Land & Ors, R (on the application of) v Executive Counsel of the Joint Disciplinary Scheme, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 15, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2086 (Admin)



Draft 21 May 2003 12:16 Page 1 
CO/3526/2002 
Neutral Citation no.: [2002] EWHC 2086 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Tuesday 15 October 2002 
Before: 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE STANLEY BURNTON 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

THE QUEEN on the application of 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mark Hapgood QC, Tim Dutton QC and Mark Simpson 
(instructed by Barlow Lyde & Gilbert) for the Claimants 
The Hon Michael Beloff QC, Jonathan Evans and Edward Sawyer 
(instructed by Stephenson Harwood) for the Defendant 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 



Mr Justice Stanley Burnton: 
Introduction 
1. In these proceedings the Claimants, the partners of the well-known firm of accountants Ernst & Young (``E&Y''), seek an order staying the investigation by the Executive Counsel of the Accountants' Joint Disciplinary Scheme (``JDS'') into their work as auditors of the Equitable Life Assurance Society and its subsidiary undertakings until after the conclusion of the civil proceedings instituted by Equitable Life against them, on the ground that the continuation of that investigation gives rise to a real risk of serious prejudice to them. The prejudice alleged by E&Y is prejudice in that litigation, in the JDS investigation itself and any subsequent Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings, and to the private and professional lives of the partners and personnel who were involved in the audits and regulatory work of the firm for Equitable Life. E&Y contend that this prejudice outweighs the public interest in the present continuation of the investigation. 
Background: (a) Equitable Life 
2. The situation of Equitable Life and the losses incurred by its policyholders were consequences of the decision of the House of Lords in Equitable Life Assurance Society v Hyman [2002] 1 AC 408, given on 20 July 2000. The House of Lords decided not only that the directors of the Society were not entitled to declare a reduced final bonus to holders of pension policies who chose to exercise their guaranteed annuity options as against those who chose not to do so, but also that the directors could not lawfully declare different final bonuses to holders of policies containing such an option as compared with holders of policies which did not include a guaranteed annuity option. It was the second of these decisions, which according to the evidence before me had not been anticipated by the leading counsel advising the Society, and was the more controversial, that led to the financial difficulties of the Society, to its decision in December 2000 to close its doors to new business, to the sale of many of its realisable assets, and to the substantial reduction in the sums paid and payable by it to its policyholders. 3. Endowment ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

[align=left] 

*Quintavalle, R (on the application of) v Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 20, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2785 (Admin)*

Case No: CO/1162/02 
Neutral Citation No.[2002] EWHC 2785 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Friday 20 December 2002 
Before : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

THE QUEEN on the application of 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:  *  020 7421 4040*   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Richard Gordon QC and Martin Chamberlain (instructed by Coningsbys) for the Claimant 
Miss Dinah Rose (instructed by Morgan Cole) for the Defendant 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
JudgmentMr Justice Maurice Kay : 1. This case is concerned with human leukocyte antigen typing, which is otherwise known as tissue typing. It is a technique which enables an embryologist to ascertain whether an embryo will produce a child whose tissue will match that of an existing person. Such a match would enable that child to act as a donor for an older sibling with a serious genetic disorder by the donation of stem cell material from the umbilical cord. The issue is whether the...
[/align]

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Peakviewing (Interactive) Ltd. & Ors v Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 23, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1531 (Admin)




CO/2630/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1531 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
London WC2A 2LL 

Tuesday, July, 23, 2002 
Before 

MR JUSTICE LAWRENCE COLLINS 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between 
(1) PEAKVIEWING (INTERACTIVE) LIMITED 
(2) TANMARSH COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED 
(3) PEAKVIEWING TRANSATLANTIC BV 
Claimants 

and 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR 
CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT 
Defendant 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr James Goudie QC and Mr Gerard Clark (instructed by Davenport Lyons) 
for the Claimants. 

Mr Alistair McGregor QC and Mr Jonathan Swift (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) 
for the Defendant. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

1 

Mr Justice Lawrence Collins: 
I Introduction 
1. The first claimant, Peakviewing (Interactive) Ltd (``Peakviewing'') is an independent film maker which produces films and television programmes. The second claimant, Tanmarsh Communications Ltd (``Tanmarsh''), is its parent company. The third claimant, Peakviewing Transatlantic BV (``Peakviewing Transatlantic''), is a Dutch company which, as owner and distributor of films produced by the group, has entered into various sale and leaseback arrangements in relation to the films. Peakviewing Interactive (Isle of Man) Ltd, an Isle of Man company in the group, commissions Peakviewing to make the programmes. 
2. Peakviewing's promotional literature describes itself as one of the United Kingdom's leading independent film makers. Although Peakviewing has produced some conventional films (on which, the evidence suggests, losses were made), this case concerns a remarkable business venture undertaken by it. Since the year 2000 it has made 334 series of five minute films, normally consisting of 26 films in each series. Most of the films are in its Viewing4Leisure series, which consist of five minute programmes with titles such as ``A Guide to Self-catering and Camping in Guernsey,'' ``Pubs/Bars - Scotland,'' ``Hotels - (North of England)'' and ``B&Bs/Guest Houses - Isle of Man''. 
3. Peakviewing describes Viewing4Leisure as a completely cross-platform, interactive leisure, travel and tourism business, enhancing all technologies from traditional television right through to interactive TV, broadband and 3G mobile technologies. It is said to consist of thousands of bespoke 5 minute programmes on selected venues, activities and destinations, predominantly for the leisure, travel and tourism industry, and with 8,500 episodes completed, it is a comprehensive viewer experience, which ``is truly world-wide in scope''. 4. The remarkable aspect of the business is this. Although more than 8,500 of these films have been made, it would seem that none of them has been commercially shown or exploited. The actual direct cash costs of producing the films are about £35,000 per series, but as a result of inter-group charges the average production costs are claimed to be more than £700,000 per series. Each of the series has been, or will be, sold to partnerships of higher-rate taxpayers on sale and leaseback arrangements. All but 11.5% of the pr...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Oliver Fisher (a firm) v Legal Services Commission, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 20, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1017 (Admin)

Case No: C0/4184/2001 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1017 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Friday 10 May 2002 
Before : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between : 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Paul Staddon (instructed by Oliver Fisher Solicitors) for the Claimants 
Jeremy Morgan (instructed by Policy and Legal Department, Legal Services Commission) for the Defendants 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 

Mr Justice Scott Baker: 

1. The Claimants seek judicial review of a decision of the Defendants, finally affirmed on 3 October 2001, to defer payment of their taxed profit costs of £16,077.38 earned while acting for a legally assisted litigant. 2. For many years it has been the law that the Legal Services Commission, and before it the Legal Aid Board, has a first charge on any property that is recovered or preserved for a legally aided litigant in proceedings that it has funded. This statuto...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Rose & Anor v Secretary of State for Health Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 26, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1593 (Admin)


Case No: CO/3802/01 
Neutral Citation Number [2002]EWHC 1593 (ADMIN) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Friday 26 July 2002 

Before : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between : 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Ms Monica Carss-Frisk Q.C and Mr Tom De La Mare (instructed by Liberty) for the Claimants 
Mr Nigel Giffin (instructed by Solicitor, Department of Health) for the First Defendant 
Ms Dinah Rose (instructed by Morgan Cole) for the Second Defendant 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 




Mr Justice Scott Baker 

1. This case concerns the rights of children born as a result of artificial insemination by donor (`A.I.D.'). There are two Claimants, Joanna Rose, an adult and EM who is a child represented by her mother as litigation friend. Their cases are being conducted by Liberty not only on their behalf but also on behalf of many others who have similar concerns to find out information about their biological parents. 
2. Joanna Rose was born in Reading in 1972, long before the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 ("the 1990 Act") and indeed well before the Warnock Committee on Human Fertilisation and Embryology whose report in 1984 led to the 1990 Act. At the time of her conception more or less complete secrecy was the order of the day but attitudes have changed a great deal during her lifetime. Fertility services were provided to her mother by Dr Boyd from his Harley Street practice and she has an older brother, Adam, who was born in 1966. He too is an A.I.D. child and was conceived as a result of fertility services at the same clinic albeit with sperm, it is believed, from a different donor. 
3. EM was born on 18 January 1996. Her mother had previously been treated for 13 months at St James's University Hospital, Leeds. She is now six years old. All that is known of the donor is that he is six feet two inches tall, of medium build, has dark hair and hazel eyes and has an A positive blood group. 4. Ms Rose lives in Brisbane, Australia. She has dual citizenship. She is single and has no children. For six months she worked full time at Link-up, an organisation working for indigenous Australians that reunites and supports children born to indigenous families, separated from those families and placed with white adopted parent...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Arzpeyma, R (on the application of) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 04, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2395 (Admin)

1 

Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 2395 Admin Case No: CO/91/2002 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Monday 4th November 2002 
B e f o r e : 

MR NIGEL PLEMING Q. C. 
(Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Patrick Lewis (instructed by Winstanley Burgess, Solicitors, for the Claimant) 
Gerard Clarke (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor for the Interested Party) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 


1. This is an application for Judicial Review of the refusal by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (Mr Rapinet, Vice President) to grant leave to appeal from the decision of an Immigration Act Adjudicator. The decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal was notified on the 9th October 2001, although dated the 25th September 2001. Mr Rapinet refused lea...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
European Roma Rights Centre & Ors v Immigration Officer At Prague Airport & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 08, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1989 (Admin),[2003] ACD 15




Case No: [2002] EWHC 1989 (Admin) 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Date: 8 October 2002 

Before : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BURTON 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between : 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Lord Lester QC, Ms Dinah Rose and Mr Guy Goodwin-Gill (instructed by Liberty) for the Claimants 
Ms Monica Carss-Frisk QC and Mr Michael Fordham (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendants 

Hearing dates : 22, 23, 24 July 2002 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
JUDGMENT : APPROVED BY THE COURT FOR HANDING DOWN (SUBJECT TO EDITORIAL CORRECTIONS) 
Mr Justice Burton: 
1. Immigration officials are stationed at entry points in the United Kingdom to enforce the Immigration Rules, contained in HC395 as amended ("the Rules"). Apart from EEA nationals, who are subject to quite separate treatment, all those who are not British citizens are not permitted to enter the United Kingdom by virtue of s3(1)(a) of the Immigration Act ("the 1971 Act") "unless given leave to do so in accordance with the provisions of, or made under," that Act, pursuant to which the Rules are made. 
2. Applications for such leave fall primarily into two categories: 
i) Those who seek and obtain visas for entry. These are available in advance of travel (entry clearance). This applies to "visa nationals", who are primarily members of some 105 countries listed in Appendix 1 to the Rules, including Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Rumania, Russia, Slovakia, Turkey and Yugoslavia (see particularly paragraphs 24-30c of the Rules). If the passenger has obtained a visa in advance then he will be admitted, subject to the provisions of Rule 321, which provides for leave still to be refused on certain limited grounds, e.g. that the immigration officer is satisfied that the visa was obtained by misrepresentation, or that there has been a material change of circumstance, or that there are certain overriding grounds such as the existence of a criminal record. 
ii) Those who apply for leave to enter upon entry. 
3. The grounds upon which entry clearance or leave to enter can be sought and obtained under the Rules are relatively numerous and are set out in Parts 2-8 of the Rules. They include short visits, whether for business, work, the obtaining of private medical treatment or a holiday (e.g. Rule 40-56, 95-127), and provide for proposed students or post-graduate doctors or dentists or student nurses (Rules 60-75, 82-87F) or their spouses or children (Rules 76-81), for au pairs (Rules 88-94), those with valid work permits (Rules 128-135) and Ministers of religion (Rules 169-177). 
4. The Rules apply stringent conditions to each category of applicant. For example, Rule 41 sets out the requirements to be met by those seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom as a visitor, namely that he or she: 
"(i) is genuinely seeking entry as a visitor for a limited period as stated ... not exceeding 6 months; and 
(ii) intends to leave the United Kingdom at the end of the period of the visit as stated ...; and 
(iii) does not intend to take employment in the United Kingdom; 
(iv) does not intend to produce goods or provide services within the United Kingdom; and 
(v) does not intend to study at a maintained school; and 
(vi) will maintain and accommodate himself and any dependants adequately out of resources available to him without recourse to public funds or taking employment; or will, with any dependants, be maintained and accommodated adequately by relatives or friends; and 
(vii) can meet the cost of the return or outward journey. " 
5. By Rule 320: 
"In addition to the grounds for refusal of entry clearance or leave to enter set out in Parts 2-8 of the Rules, and subject to Paragraph 321 [to which I have referred in paragraph 2(i) above], the following grounds for the refusal of entry clearance or leave to enter apply: 
Grounds on which entry clearance or leave to enter the United Kingdom is to be refused 
(1) The fact that entry is being sought for a purpose not covered by these Rules ... 
(3) A failure by the person seeking entry to the United Kingdom to produce to the Immigration Officer a valid national passport or other document satisfactorily establishing his identity and nationality ... 
(5) Failure, in the case of a visa national, to produce to the Immigration Officer a passport or other identity document endorsed with a valid and current United Kingdom entry clearance issued for the purpose for which entry is sought. 
Grounds on which entry clearance or leave to enter the United Kingdom should normally be refused 
(8) Failure by a person arriving in the United Kingdom to furnish the Immigration Officer with such information as may be required for the purpose of deciding whether he requires leave to enter and, if so, whether and on what terms leave should be given ... (19) Where from information av...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Cumpsty, R (on the application of) v Rent Service, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 08, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2526 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/1892/02 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 2526 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Friday, 8 November 2002 
B E F O R E: 

MR JUSTICE PITCHFORD 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF CUMPSTY 
(CLAIMANT) 

-v- 

RENT SERVICE 
(DEFENDANT) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
MR JAN LUBA QC AND MR ADAM FULLWOOD (FOR JUDGMENT MISS HARRIS) (instructed by The Thrasher Walker Partnership, The Old Bank, 112 Heaton Moore Road, Heaton More, Stockport, SK4 4 AN) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT 
MR G FETHERSTONHAUGH (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
J U D G M E N T1. MR JUSTICE PITCHFORD: 
THE CLAIM FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW 
The claimant, Mr Robert Cumpsty, holds an assured tenancy of 1 Silent Valley Cottage situated between the villages of Lymm and High Legh in Cheshire. His is a private landlord. His monthly contractual rent is £550. Since 18th September 1996, Mr Cumpsty has been in receipt of housing benefit. On 22nd January 2002 the Rent Service, by their rent officer, Mr Duncan Turner, redetermined his Local Reference Rent for the purposes of Article 3 and Schedule 1 paragraph 4 of the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Order 1997 in the sum of £525 per month. 
2. The claimant was on financial grounds entitled to housing benefit at the maximum rate, in this case £525, leaving a shortfall to be found from his income support of £25 per month. The claimant seeks a review of the Rent Service decision on two grounds: 
(1) Mr Turner misdirected himself in law by applying the wrong test of locality by which to arrive at the Local Reference Rent; and 
(2)(a) the redetermination was procedurally unfair contrary to the rules of natural justice; and/or 

(b) in breach of the claimant's Article 6 right to a fair trial in the determination of his civil rights. 
As to ground (2) it is accepted that if the process is Article 6 compliant then ground (2) falls in its entirety. 
THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK 

3. The presence of ground (2) requires me to describe in some detail the statutory framework which caused the Rent Service to make its redetermination. The framework I am considering is now out of date, but I am asked to express views which may be of more general application in Housing Benefit cases. 
4. Housing benefit is a non-contributory earnings related benefit payable by local authorities and not by the Department of Social Security. Its cost is met, however, wholly or largely from government funding by reimbursement to the paying authorities. There are two forms of benefit: rent rebate, paid by the local authorities to their own tenants; and rent allowances, provided by local authorities for the benefit of the tenants of others. I am concerned in this case with the latter. 
5. In the event that the tenant's contractual rent is not met by housing benefit, the local authority has a statutory discretion to provide further financial assistance to meet housing costs. Mr Cumpsty has received such payments but they do not feature in the analysis required for this review. 
6. By section 130(1) Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992: 
"A person is entitled to housing benefit if- 
(a) he is liable to make payments in respect of a dwelling in Great Britain which he occupies as his home; 
(b) there is an appropriate maximum housing benefit in his case, and 
(c) either 
(i) he has no income, or his income does not exceed the applicable amount, or (ii) his income exceeds that amount but only by so much that there is an amount remaining if the deduction for which subsection (3)(b) (below) provides is...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Langford v The Law Society, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 09, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2802 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/3282/02 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 2802 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
DIVISIONAL COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Monday, 9 December 2002 
B E F O R E: 

LORD JUSTICE ROSE 
(Vice President of the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division) 

MR JUSTICE FULFORD 

- - - - - - - 

IN THE MATTER OF A SOLICITOR 
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974 

LANGFORD 
(CLAIMANT) 

-v- 

THE LAW SOCIETY 
(DEFENDANT) 
- - - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
MR C FOSTER (instructed by Hempsons, Hempsons Hse, 40 Villiers Street, London WC2N BNJ) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT 
MR G WILLIAMS (Solicitor) (instructed by The Law Society) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT 
- - - - - - - J U D G M E N T 1. LORD JUSTICE ROSE: The appellant appeals against a decision of the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal whereby he was ordered to be struck off the Roll of Solicitors. The Tribunal heard the case against this appellant ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Murray, R (on the application of) v Hampshire County Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 21, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2491 (Admin)

Case No: CO/3384/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 2491 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Thursday 21 November 2002 
Before : 

The Hon. Mr Justice OUSELEY 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 




- - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr William UPTON (instructed by Richard Buxton) for the Claimant 
Mr Tim HOWARD (instructed by Hampshire County Council Legal Practice) for the Defendant 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 

Mr Justice Ouseley : 


Introduction 

1. The extension of the M3 around Winchester, carving its way through the grassland of Twyford Down on its way to Southampton, had been a matter of deep public controversy in Winchester and beyond. The cost of a tunnel was thought to be excessive. But in its 1990 Decision Letter on this extension the Government agreed that, in return, the old A33 Winchester bypass would be broken out and turned to open grassland. The chalk sub-soil, properly seeded and tended, would become wild flower meadow land. This was done and the Bar End meadows, which were once part of the old by-pass, are now flourishing wild flower meadows. 

2. In 1996 Hampshire County Council applied to itself for planning permission to turn the Bar End meadows into a car park of 428 spaces for the Winchester Park and Ride scheme; this would be additional to 238 spaces at Bar End Road. The Secretary of State called in the two applications for his own determination because of national policy implications and in the light of an undertaking given by the Government about the former bypass in connection with the decision on the M3 link through Twyford Down. A public Inquiry was held in late 1997. 
3. The Secretary of State dealt with the undertaking in his 1998 decision letter in paragraphs 12-14. "12. ... In the M3 decision letter the former Secretaries of State agreed that the removal of the existing bypass and the reclamation and planting of the area would be " ... a major environmental benefit of the published proposals" which would be welcomed by many, including objectors. The press statements which accompanied the M3 decision announced that the removal of the Winchester bypass and the restoration of the area would be a significant envi
[/align]*...

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Ramda, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 27, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1278 (Admin)




Case No: CO/4894/2001 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1278 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
DIVISIONAL COURT 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Date: 27 June 2002 

Before: 

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY 
and 
MR JUSTICE POOLE 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between: 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Ben Emmerson QC and Julian Knowles (instructed by Birnberg Peirce & Partners) for the Claimant 
James Eadie (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendant 

Hearing dates: 10 May 2002 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
JUDGMENT : APPROVED BY THE COURT FOR HANDING DOWN (SUBJECT TO EDITORIAL CORRECTIONS) 
Lord Justice Sedley: 

This is the judgment of the court. 

These proceedings 

1. The applicant, Rachid Ramda, an Algerian national, is wanted by the French government for trial in connection with a series of terrorist bombings in France between July and October 1995 which resulted in much destruction and injury. The Home Secretary has ordered his extradition to France under s.12 of the Extradition Act 1989. Mr Ramda seeks permission to apply for judicial review of this decision. Scott Baker J has directed that his application should come before this court with the full hearing to follow if permission is granted. Subject to the reservation mentioned in paragraph 5 below, we grant permission. What follows is our decision on the substantive application for judicial review. 2. Among the first arrests made in France after the bombings was that of...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
C, R (on the application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, February 01, 2002, [2002] EWHC 243 (Admin)

CO/4501/2001 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 243 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2A 2LL 

Friday 1st February 2002 
B e f o r e 

MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 

T H E Q U E E N 
ON TH...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
BAA Plc v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and Regions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 31, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1920 (Admin)


Case No: CO 4305-01 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1920 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Combined Courts Centre 
The Law Courts 
Winchester 
Hants SO23 9EL 

Wednesday 31 July 2002 
Before : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TURNER 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between : 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr Robert FOOKES & Mr Reuben TAYLOR appeared for the Claimant 
Mr Paul NICHOLLS appeared for the Defendant 
MR David WOOLLEY QC appeared for the 3rd Defendant 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 

Introduction 
Mr Justice Turner: This is an application under part 8 of the CPR and section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash the decision of the Secretary of State dated 18 September 2001 under which he granted planning permissions for the construction of the Chickenhall Lane Link Road (the Link Road), and in particular that section of it which it was proposed should pass in a cutting immediately to the North of Runway 20 of Southampton International Airport. 
History 
1. Acting under section 77 of the Act, the Secretary of State called in two planning applications on 10 March 2000. Both related to the construction of the Link Road. The applications were identified as being: 
i) planning application no. 7535/40 and 
ii) reserved matters application no. 7535/41, pursuant to the outline planning permission granted ... under reference 7535/12. [Note: all applications will hereafter be identified by their forward slash suffix numbers only eg 7535/12 as .../12]. 
2. The reason for the call-in was stated to be 
Because the applications raise issues of more than local importance about the application of recommendations by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), the Secretary of State is of the opinion that he ought to decide the applications for himself. 
3. The letter of call-in went on to identify matters which appeared to the Secretary of State to be likely to be relevant to his consideration of the applications, namely the effect which the proposed road would have on (a) the ICAO's Recommended Practices for Runway End Safety Areas (RESAs) at the airport (b) the impact which the proposed development would have on the River Itchen candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC) and (c) whether any permission should be subject to any and, if so, what conditions. 4. The Inquiry, which began on 5 September 2000 lasted a number of days. The parties to the present proceedings, with the addition of the local planning authority, Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC), appeared at the Inquiry. The applicant for permission was the third defendant who was the developer intending to develop two areas of `brown land' situated at the Southwest an...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Hooper &amp; Ors v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, February 08, 2002, [2002] UKHRR 785,[2002] EWHC 191 (Admin)


Case No: CO/0865/2001 
Case No: CO/4743/2000 
Case No: CO/3505/2001 
Case No: CO/3507/2001 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 191 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Thursday 14th February 2002 
B e f o r e : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MOSES 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Mr. James Goudie QC and Mr. Jason Coppel (instructed by Loosemores for Mr. Hooper) 
Mr. Geoffrey Cox and Mr. Edward Risso-Gill (instructed by Royds Treadwell for Messrs. Withey, Naylor and Martin) 
Mr. Philip Sales and Miss Jemima Stratford (instructed by the Solicitor to the Department of Work and Pensions for the Secretary of State) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 
Crown Copyright © 



Mr Justice Moses: 

INTRODUCTION 
1. These four claimants are widowers. Their wives, sadly, died before the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 ("the 1999 Act") came into force on 9.4.2001. Had they been women they would have become entitled to one or more forms of benefit payable to widows pursuant to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. In issue are three types of widow's benefit: Widow's Payment, Widowed Mother's Allowance and Widow's Pension. These are test cases, since there are a large number of potential claimants whose entitlement will depend upon the outcome of this case. 

2. At the heart of the case lies an issue of discrimination on the ground of gender and the effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 upon the powers of the court to rectify such discrimination. The Government has reached a friendly settlement of claims brought by widowers who made claims to benefits other than Widow's Pension in Strasbourg. The claimants assert that their claims should also have been settled. 

3. Widow's Payment and Widowed Mother's Allowance are at issue in the claims of Messrs. Hooper, Withey and Martin. Widow's Payment and Widow's Pension are at issue in the case of Mr. Naylor. Mr. Hooper's first wife died on 17.12.1986 leaving two dependent children. His second wife died on 27 March 1997, leaving three dependent children. Mr. Withey's wife died on 26 November 1996, leaving two dependent children. Mr. Martin's wife died on 11 September 2000, leaving two dependent children and Mr. Naylor's wife died on 2 July 1995. 
STATUTORY PROVISIONS 

4. Sections 36-38 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 ("the 1992 Act ") provided for the payment of Widow's Payment, Widowed Mother's Allowance and Widow's Pension in respect of the death of a husband before 9 April 2001. The relevant provisions are set out in the Annexe to this judgment. The provisions of the Social Security Act 1986 are relevant to Mr. Hooper's claim in respect of the death of his first wife but since, for reasons given later, he has no valid claim I shall not set out those provisions. 

5. Section 36 of the 1992 Act provided for a Widow's Payment, a lump sum payment of £1000 subject to conditions which included restriction to those under pensionable age and payment by the late husband of National Insurance contributions. 

6. Section 37 provided for a Widowed Mother's Allowance, weekly payments, for women with dependent children (entitled to child benefit) subject to similar conditions. 

7. Section 38 provided for Widow's Pension, weekly payments, to those over 45 but under the age of 65 subject to similar conditions. 

8. These provisions were replaced by the 1999 Act, the relevant provisions of which are set out in the Annexe. These provisions introduced a system of survivor's benefits, Bereavement Payment, Widowed Parent's Allowance and Bereavement Allowance payable to both men and women, but at the cost of a more limited form of benefit. But it preserved the distinction between widows and widowers for those already in receipt of widows' benefits. It was not made retrospective. 
9. Section 54 (inserting a new Section 36 into the 1999 Act) replaced Widow's Payment with Bereavement Payment set at £2000 for those whose spouses died on or after 9 April 2001. A deceased spouse must have satisfied the contribution condition. 

10. Section 55 (inserting a new Section 39A) provides for Widowed Parent's Allowance for spouses with dependent children. The contribution condition must have been satisfied. 

11. Section 55 also (by the insertion of a new Section 39B) replaces Widow's Pension by a Bereavement Allowance payable only for 52 weeks to those over 45 but under pensionable age. 
12. Existing rights are preserved by Section 55 (inserting Section 36A). Widows whose husbands died before 9 April 2001 will continue to rece...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Oriekhil v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 08, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2750 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/2412/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 2750 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
DIVISIONAL COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Date: Tuesday, 8th October 2002 
B E F O R E: 

MR JUSTICE JACKSON 

- - - - - - - 

NAJIBULLAH ORIEKHIL 
(CLAIMANT) 

-v- 

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT 
(DEFENDANT) 
- - - - - - - Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Taylor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 20, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2761 (Admin)

Case No: CO/4746/1999 
Neutral Citation Number [2002] EWHC 2761 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Friday 20 December 2002 
Before : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
THE QUEEN 

On the application of 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Peter Irvin (instructed by Abboushi Associates) for the Claimant 
Hugo Keith (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) for the Defendant 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
JudgmentMr Justice Maurice Kay : 1. John Henry Taylor is now eighty years old. On 9 August 1962, following a trial at the County of London Sessions, he was convicted of an offence of breaking out of a building having committed a felony therein contrary to section 26 of the Larceny Act 1916. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment. He applied to the Court of Criminal Appeal for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence but on 21 December 1962 leave was refused. He has always maintained that he was wrongly convicted. He unsuccessfully petitioned the Home Secretary to have the matter referred back to the Court of Appeal. It was only after the establishment of the Criminal Cases Review Commission that his case was again referred to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. On 18 June 1998 the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction. Within days, solicitors acting on behalf of Mr. Taylor applied to the Home Secretary for compensation pursuant to the statutory scheme pursuant to section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 or for an ex gratia payment in accordance with the Home Secretary's statement to the House of Commons on 29 November 1985. On 18 November 1998 the Home Secretary refused compensation under both headings. Mr. Taylor applied for j
[/align]*...

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Emlik, R (on the application of) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 26, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1279 (Admin)



Case No: CO/189/2002 
NEUTRAL CITATION NUMBER: [2002] EWHC 1279 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Wednesday 26 June 2002 
B e f o r e : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SILBER 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr. Manjit Gill QC (instructed by Sheikh & Co for the claimant) 
Mr. Michael Fordham (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor for the interested party) 
The defendant was not represented 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 


Silber J: 
The claimant seeks to quash a decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal made on 12 October 2001 allowing the appeal of the Secretary of State for the Home Department against a decision of a Special Adjudicator made on 30 May 2001 ("the second hearing") allowing the claimant's appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State refusing the claimant asylum and giving directions for his removal from the United Kingdom. The decision of the Special Adjudicator on the second hearing to allow the appeal was based on the failure of the Secretary of State to comply with a direction of a Special Adjudicator made at a hearing on 22 February 2001 ("the first hearing") to consider the claimant's substantive asylum application. Sir Oliver Popplewell granted permission to make this application. This appeal r...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
R (Tamil Information Centre) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 18, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2155 (Admin)

Case No: CO/4924/2001 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 2155 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Friday 18th October 2002 

Before : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE FORBES 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Between : 



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Robin Allen QC and Simon Cox, instructed by Winstanley-Burgess, 
appeared for the Claimant; 

Michael Fordham, instructed by The Treasury Solicitor, 
appeared for the Defendant. 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 

Mr Justice Forbes : 
1. Introduction. As originally framed, these proceedings were for appropriate relief by way of judicial review in respect of the first and second Race Relations (Immigration and Asylum) Authorisations (hereafter called ``the first Authorisation'' and ``the second Authorisation'') respectively made by the Defendant (``the Secretary of State'') on 27th March and 23rd April 2001 pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976 (``the 1976 Act''), as amended by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 (``the 2000 Act''). However, on 11th June 2002, the second Authorisation was revoked by the Secretary of State. In the event, therefore, these proceedings are concerned only with the Claimant's challenge to the lawfulness of the first Authorisation. 
2. The Claimant is a non-profit making company run by Tamils as a resource centre and library that is concerned with the welfare of Tamils and, in particular, their equality under the law. Most of the individuals who are involved with the Claimant originate from Sri Lanka, but their number also includes Tamils who are nationals of other countries, including India, the USA and various European countries. It is worth noting that it is common ground that, in all the circumstances, the Claimant does have a...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Atkinson & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 09, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2028 (Admin)




Case No: CO/601/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 2028 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
DIVISIONAL COURT 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Date: 9th October 2002 

Before : 

LORD JUSTICE BROOKE 
and 
MR JUSTICE BELL 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between : 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Kenneth Parker QC & Kassie Smith (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the Appellant 
Simon Temple (instructed by Beaty & Co) for the First Respondent 
Paul Timothy Evans (instructed by Scott Duff & Co) for the Second Respondent 

Hearing date : 30th July 2002 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
JUDGMENT : APPROVED BY THE COURT FOR HANDING DOWN (SUBJECT TO EDITORIAL CORRECTIONS) 



Lord Justice Brooke : This is the judgment of the court. 1. This is an appeal by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ("DEFRA") by way of case stated from the decision of justices sitting at Penrith Magistrates' Court on 9th November 2001 to acquit Brendon Atkinson and Robert Hughes of a number of offences relating to veterinary medicinal products. All the alleged offences were said to have been committed at Penrith. At the end of the prosecution case the justices held that there was no case to answer. They therefore discharged the...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Hopley, R (on the application of) v Liverpool Health Authority & Ors, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 30, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1723 (Admin)


Case No: CO/1369/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1723 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Tuesday 30 July 2002 
Before : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE PITCHFORD 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between : 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Richard Hone QC and Sarah Moore (instructed by Edwards, Abrams & Doherty) for the Claimant 
Robert Seabrook QC and Shaheen Rahman (instructed by Hill Dickinson) for the First and Second Defendants 
Susan Chan (instructed by The Department of Health) for the Third Defendant 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 
Mr Justice Pitchford: 
The Claim 
1. The Claimant seeks judicial review of a decision by the First Defendant not to consent to the payment to him of damages for personal injury by periodical payments under a With Profits Structured Settlement pursuant to s.2 Damages Act 1996. The Second and Third Defendants are joined since, it is contended by the Claimant, they contributed to or directed the First Defendant's decision. 
The Parties and Factual Background to the Dispute 
2. The Claimant was born on 20 March 1973 and is now aged 29 years. He is the son of Kenneth and Patricia Hopley. Richard Hopley was at birth the victim of hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy. He suffers a form of athetoid cerebral palsy which renders him severely physically incapacitated. Richard retains much of his cognitive functioning, indeed he attended most of the hearing before me, but suffers profound communication difficulties. He is wheelchair dependent, requires assistance with transfers and his carers are on 24 hour call. His bravery and the care he has received from his family are impressive. 
3. The Claimant pursued a claim for clinical negligence arising from the treatment provided by the First Defendant, Liverpool Health Authority, at or about the time of his birth. That claim was compromised on 20 June 2000 at 50 % full liability with damages to be assessed. On 27 February 2001 Ouseley J. adjourned approval of a proposed settlement between the Claimant and First Defendant in the conventional sum of £2,100,000 for consideration of a structured settlement under s. 2 Damages Act 1996. 4. The Second Defendant is the National Health Service Litigation Authority, ('NHSLA'), a creature of statute. It is necessary to examine the statutory provisions. Section 21 National Health and Community Care Act 1990 empowered the Secretary of State for Health, with the consent of the Treasury, to make regulations establishing a scheme by which Health Authorities and other bodies would be enabled to meet their liabilities to "third parties for loss, damage or injury arising out of the carrying out of the functions of the body concerned". Such a scheme could, by s. 21(3), provide for its administration by the Secretary of State or a Special Health Authority, could require any participating body to make payments in accordance with the scheme, and could provide for the making of payments for the purpose of t...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Lucie M v Worcestershire County Council & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 28, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1292 (Admin)



Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2A 2LL 

Friday, June 28, 2002 
Before 

MR JUSTICE LAWRENCE COLLINS 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between 
LUCIE M 
Appellant 

and 


(1) WORCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL 
(2) WILLIAM EVANS 
Respondent 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr John Friel (instructed by Elaine Maxwell & Co) for the Appellant 
Mr Clive Sheldon (instructed by the Legal Department, Worcestershire CC) for the First Respondent 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 
Crown Copyright © 



20 

Mr Justice Lawrence Collins: 
I Introduction 
1. J M is now about 13½ years old and lives in Malvern, Worcestershire. He has severe learning difficulties, and his parents (his mother being the appellant) are dissatisfied with a decision of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal ("the Tribunal"), the effect of which is that he will have to attend a special school, run by the local educational authority ("the Authority"). The parents (and also J) want him to go to a privately run specialist school in Devon, F College, which has a much smaller number of pupils and can provide the direct occupational and speech and language therapy which they say he requires. The cost to the local authority of sending J to F College would be between £57,000 and £75,000 p.a. 2. The challenge to the decision of the Tribunal is centred on the rejection of the case put forward on his behalf that he should receive direct therapy by an occupational therapist, that he should receive direct speech and language therapy, and that The schoolwas unsuitable for J's needs. In particular it was said that the Tribunal had not taken proper account of the evidence that he would not go to the school and could not be persuaded to go there, and that the school did not have full provision to meet his needs, because it was the Authority's policy not to provide direct speech therapy, and there were no adequate facilities available to provide occupational therapy. The main focus of the challenge was on lack of adequate reasoning. But it was also suggested that in relation to its findings on occupational therapy the...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Decra Plastics Ltd. v Waltham Forest, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 13, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2718 (Admin)

Case No: CO/3359/2002 
CO/3749/2002 
Neutral Citation No: [2002] EWHC 2718 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Friday 13 December 2002 
Before : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE RICHARDS 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between : 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr Clive Moys (instructed by Edwin Coe, Solicitors) for the Claimant 
Mr Richard Langham (instructed by Legal Department, London Borough of Waltham Forest) for the Defendant 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 

Mr Justice Richards: 
1. The claimant company, Decra Plastics Limited ("Decra"), challenges the Waltham Forest (Prescribed Route) (No.1) Traffic Order 2002 ("the traffic order"), which was made by the defendant council, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, on 2 July 2002 and was due to come into operation on 22 July 2002, though its operation has been suspended by injunction pending the resolution of the challenge. The challenge is brought both by way of statutory challenge under paragraph 35 of schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and by way of judicial review. Strictly speaking, the statutory challenge is to the traffic order itself whereas the judicial review challenge is to the decision to make the order. The substantive issues, however, are the same and nothing turns on the dual procedure. 
2. The traffic order, which is referred to loosely in the documents as a closure order, prohibits vehicular traffic from entering part of a road known as South Access Road. To the north lies the Markhouse Avenue residential area. To the south lies the borough's main industrial area which includes Forest Business Park, the Roxwell Industrial Estate and the Argall Avenue Industrial Estate. In between, and immediately adjacent to South Access Road, are a number of council facilities, including a sports ground, a household waste and recycling centre, a council depot and a tip site. 
3. The council explains that the order is the final part of a programme of highway and traffic regulation works designed to rationalise commercial traffic movements and to enhance residential amenity in this part of the borough. Prior to those works the only means of access by traffic to much of the industrial area (including Forest Business Park) and to the council's facilities was via South Access Road and the residential area to the north. Only the southern part of the industrial area had access from the south, along Argall Avenue. There was a long history of complaints from residents about the volume of commercial traffic through the Markhouse Avenue residential area. Moreover the council wished to redevelop the tip site but took the view that it would be inappropriate to do so if all the traffic had to pass along South Access Road and through the residential area. Accordingly it was decided to provide suitable means of access from the south to the relevant parts of the industrial area and to certain of the council facilities. 4. The principal elements in the programme were (i) the construction, as part of the Leyton Relief Road project, of a north-south spur, namely Argall Way, between Argall Avenue (East) and Lea Bridge Road, so as to connect the industrial area to Lea Bridge Road and the strategic road ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
WB & Anor, R (on the application of) v Leeds School Organisation Committee, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, September 13, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1927 (Admin)

Case No: CO/4978/01 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1927 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Friday 13 September 2002 
Before : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between : 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Marc Beaumont (instructed by Messrs Shulmans) for the Claimants 
Helen Mountfield (instructed by Department of Legal Services, Leeds City Council) for the Defendants 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 

Mr Justice Scott Baker: 
1. The Claimants WB and KA are children attending, or who were until recently attending, All Saints Church of England Junior School, Otley. The decision challenged is that of the Defendants, the Leeds School Organisation Committee, of 10 September 2001 to discontinue the school. The substantive application for judicial review comes before me following the order of the Court of Appeal on 20 June...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Goldfinch (Projects) Ltd. v National Assembly for Wales & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 21, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1275 (Admin)

Case No: CO/4855/01 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1275 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Friday 21 June 2002 
Before : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between : 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr Nicholas Nardecchia (instructed by Halliwell Landau) for the Claimant 
Mr Rhodri Williiams (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) for the First Defendant 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 

Mr Justice Scott Baker: 

1. The Claimant applies under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the 1990 Act) as a person aggrieved by the decision of an inspector dismissing its appeal against the Second Defendant's refusal of planning permission. The inquiry was held on 9 and 10 October 2001 and the inspector's decision is dated 22 October 2001. 2. The site in question is about 1.98 hectares and is located to the west of Sealand Road and about 0.5 km south of Saughall in Flintshire. A company called Caxios Limited has occupied the site since about 1980 but has recently sold it to the Claimant. The existing and permitted use is general industrial. The site is in open countryside and has developed over some 40 years from an old railway station. Large metal pipework is manufactured in a building of some size. There is also a substantial two storey office ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Colonel M, R (on the application of) v Ashworth Hospital Authority, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 05, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1521 (Admin)

CO/2769/2001 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1521 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
The Strand 
London 

Friday 5 July 2002 
B e f o r e: 
MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN 

_______________ 

THE QUEEN on the application of 

COLONEL M 
Claimant 
- v - 

ASHWORTH HOSPITAL AUTHORITY 
(Now MERSEY CARE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE TRUST) 
Defendant 
and 

(1) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HEALTH 

(2) THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT COMMISSION 
Interested parties 
_______________ 

Computer Aided Transcription by 
Smith Bernal, 190 Fleet Street, London EC4 
Telephone No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
_______________ 
MR NIGEL PLEMING QC and MISS FENELLA MORRIS (instructed by Hogans 
Solicitors, Merseyside, L35 0LP) appeared on behalf of THE CLAIMANT 

MR JOHN HOWELL QC and MISS PHILLIPPA KAUFMANN (instructed by Messrs 
Reid Minty, London W1K 4PS) appeared on behalf of THE DEFENDANT 

MR PHILIP SALES and MR BEN HOOPER (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of THE INTERESTED PARTIES 
______________ 
J U D G M E N TFriday 5 July 2002 
MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN: 
Introduction 
1. The claimant is a patient detained under section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (``the Act'') at Ashworth Special Hospital (``Ashworth''). He was admitted to Ashworth on 1 March 1994 from the Three Bridges Regional Secure Unit. He had previously been a patient at Ashworth between July 1984 and March 1992. 
2. Ashworth is one of three hospitals which provide high security psychiatric services for persons who ``require treatment under conditions of high security on account of their dangerous, violent or criminal propensities'': see section 4 of the National Health Services Act 1977, as amended. The other two such hospitals are Broadmoor and Rampton. 
3. On 1 April 2002 the defendant, the Mersey Care NHS Trust, took over responsibility for the provision of high security psychiatric services at Ashworth from the Ashworth Hospital Authority, the original defendant in these proceedings. 
4. Section 118 of the Act provides so far as relevant for present purposes: 
``(1) The Secretary of State shall prepare, and from time to time revise, a code of practice -- 
(a) for the guidance of registered medical practitioners, managers and staff of hospitals and mental nursing homes and approved social workers in relation to the admission of patients to hospitals and mental nursing homes under this Act and to guardianship and after-care under supervision under this Act; and 
(b) for the guidance of registered medical practitioners and members of other professions in relation to the medical treatment of patients suffering from mental disorder. 
.... 
(3) Before preparing the code or making any alteration in it the Secretary of State shall consult such bodies as appear to him to be concerned. 
(4) The Secretary of State shall lay copies of the code and any alteration in the code before Parliament; and if either House of Parliament passes a resolution requiring the code or any alteration in it to be withdrawn the Secretary of State shall withdraw the code or alteration and, where he withdraws the code, shall prepare a code of substitution for the one which is withdrawn. 
.... 
(6) The Secretary of State shall publish the code as for the time being in force.'' 
5. The current code was published in March 1999. In the foreword the then Secretary of State, Mr Dobson, said, inter alia: 
``People with mental health problems deserve good care and support. They are often vulnerable, may have difficulty in expressing their needs and, in some cases, may not recognise that they need help. These patients, carers, and the general public, should be able to rely on health and social services which provide effective care and treatment. 
.... 
The Code provides essential reference guidance for those who apply the Act. Patients and their carers are entitled to expect professionals to use it.'' 
6. Paragraph 1 in the Introduction to the Code explains: 
``This revised Code of Practice has been prepared in accordance with section 118 of the Mental Health Act 1983 by the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for Wales, after consulting such bodies as appeared to them to be concerned, and laid before Parliament. The Code will come into force on 1 April 1999. The Act does not impose a legal duty to comply with the Code but as it is a statutory document, failure to follow it could be referred to in evidence in legal proceedings.'' 
7. Under ``Guiding Principles'' paragraph 1.1 says: 
``The detailed guidance in the Code needs to be read in the light of the following broad principles, that people to whom the Act applies (including those being assessed for possible admission) should: 
*receive recognition of their basic human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); *be given respect for their qualities, abilities and diverse backgrounds as in...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Woods v General Medical Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 18, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1484 (Admin)




Case No: CO/4080/2001 
[2002] EWHC 1484 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 


Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Date: Thursday 18 July 2002 

Before : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BURTON 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between : 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr Richard Gordon QC and Mr S Donovan (instructed by Goodmans) for the Claimant 
Miss Dinah Rose (instructed by Field Fisher Waterhouse) for the Defendant 

Hearing dates : 17 and 18 June 2002 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Approved Judgment 

I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic. 


............................. 
Mr Justice BURTON 
Mr Justice Burton: 
1. The Claimant, Christine Woods, is the mother of a baby boy, who was born on 30 September 1989 and died the following day. His body was transferred to Alder Hey Children's Hospital on 4 October 1989. A post mortem was performed on 9 October 1989. Ten years later the Claimant was informed, as many other parents similarly learned, that a number of her baby's organs had been removed and retained without her consent. In this application she has been represented by Richard Gordon QC and Scott Donovan. 
2. On 3 December 1999 Lord Hunt, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, established an independent and confidential inquiry under s2 of the National Health Service Act 1977, to investigate the removal, retention and disposal of human organs and tissues following post mortem examinations at the Alder Hey Hospital, operated by the Royal Liverpool Children's NHS Trust. 
3. The terms of reference of the inquiry, which was chaired by Michael Redfern QC, included the following: 
· To inquire into the circumstances leading to the removal, retention and disposal of human tissue, including organs of the body, from children at [Alder Hey] who have undergone post mortem. 
· To inquire into the extent to which the Human Tissue Act 1961 has been complied with. 
· To examine professional practice and management action and systems, including what information, and in what form, was given to the children's parents, or, where relevant, other family members, in respect of the removal, retention and disposal of tissue. 
· To examine the role of the NHS and other persons or bodies involved. 
4. The Report was published on 30 January 2001. A copy of it was passed to the General Medical Council ("GMC") on the day it was published, and it was reported at the time that Professor Sir Liam Donaldson, the Government Chief Medical Officer, had referred it to the GMC for consideration of disciplinary proceedings against doctors named in the Report. In any event, the GMC proceeded to consider whether the Report raised any issues of serious professional misconduct about doctors registered with the GMC which required further investigation by the GMC. Specifically the position of thirteen doctors was considered. 5. The provisions of the GMC for c...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
U, R (on the application of) v Durham Constabulary, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 29, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2486 (Admin)



Case No: CO/1979/2002 & 
CO/1918/2002 

Neutral Citation No: [2002] EWCA 2486 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Friday, 29th November 2002 

Before : 

LORD JUSTICE LATHAM 
and 
MR JUSTICE FIELD 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between : 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Mr Marc Willers (instructed by Parker Arrenberg Dawson & Cobb) for the Applicant ``U'' 
Miss Anne Stud for the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis 

Mr Geoff Knowles (instructed by Gordon Brown Associates) for the Applicant ``R'' 
Miss Anne Stud for the Chief Constable of Durham Constabulary 

Mr Steven Kovats (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State (Interested Party) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 
Crown Copyright © 

Lord Justice Latham: 
1. This judgment is the judgment of the Court. These two applications raise important questions of principle and practice in relation to the Final Warning Scheme (the Scheme) established by sections 65 and 66 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, as amended by the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 s. 56 (the Act). The Scheme is part of the strategy devised to prevent offending and re-offending by children and young persons. Its aim is to divert children and young persons from their offending behaviour before they enter the court system. It replaced, for children and young persons, the systems of cautions which had previously been in place with a more structured approach intended to prevent re-offending. Depending on the seriousness of the offence, a reprimand is normally given for a first offence and a final warning for a second offence; thereafter the young offender should generally be charged. Following a final warning, the police have a statutory duty to refer the young offender to a Youth Offending Team in order to determine whether or not to provide an intervention pr...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Ngamguem, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 08, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1550 (Admin)

CO/3511/2001 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1550 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
(THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT) 
Royal Courts of Justice 
The Strand 
London WC2 

Monday 8 July 2002 
B e f o r e: 

MR JUSTICE OUSELEY 

- - - - - - - 

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF NGAMGUEM 


-v- 


THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT 

- - - - - - 

(Computer-aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited 
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG 
Telephone No: 0171-421 4040/0171-404 1400 
Fax No: 0171-831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 

- - - - - - 

MR ERIC FRIPP (instructed by ANTHONY LOUCA SOLICITORS, LONDON NW16TT) appeared on behalf of the Claimant. 

MR TOM WEISSELBERG (instructed by THE TREASURY SOLICITOR, LONDON) appeared on behalf of the Defendant. 

- - - - - - 

J U D G M E N T SMITH BERNAL 
1. MR JUSTICE OUSELEY: The claimant left Cameroon in February 2001 and within a day of his arrival in the United Kingdom he claimed asylum on 12th March 2001. This claim was refused and the claimant appealed to an Adjudicator against that decision. The Adjudicator rejected the claimant's appeal in a decision dated 22nd May 2001. The claimant produced his own form of application for leave to appeal to the IAT, but nothing came of that application. 
2. On 31st August 2001 the claimant's solicitor wrote to the Secretary of State (``the defendant'') enclosing a letter dated 30th August 2001 from the Secretary of the Archdiocese of Douala, Cameroon. The author of the letter is sometimes referred to as the Chancellor of the diocese. The solicitor's letter of 31st August 2001 explained how the letter of 30th August 2001 from the Chancellor of the Archdiocese had come about. It was sent to the Secretary of State along with a number of criticisms that were made of the conclusions of the Special Adjudicator. The solicitor pointed out that the letter from the Archdiocese was new and independent documentary evidence that ought to enable the Secretary of State to cancel, at least temporarily, the removal directions whilst the claimant's case was reconsidered in the light of what had been said. 3. By a letter dated 1st September 2001 the Secretary of State rejected that contention. The Secretary of State said that he had received a letter ``purporting to be from the personal secretary o...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Confederation of Passenger Transport UK v Humber Bridge Board, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 01, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2261 (Admin)

Case No: CO/642/2002 
Neutral Citation Number [2002] EWHC 2261 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Friday 1 November 2002 
Before : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NEWMAN 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Between : 


- and - 

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS 
Interested Party 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Elisabeth Laing (instructed by Pellys, Solicitors) for the Claimant 
Frances Patterson QC (instructed by Kingston Upon Hull City Council) for the Defendant 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 

Mr Justice Newman : 

Introduction 
1. The Confederation of Passenger Transport UK ("the Confederation") is an organisation representing the majority of, but not all, operators of public service vehicles (PSVs) in the UK. The Humber Bridge Board ("the Board") is a statutory body having the power to administer the Humber Bridge. The Board's powers are contained in two Acts, namely the Humber Bridge Act 1959 and the Humber Bridge Act 1971 (respectively the 1959 Act and the 1971 Act). The Bridge opened to traffic on 24 June 1981. 
2. This application for judicial review by the Confederation raises an issue as to whether since l997 the Board has had the power to levy and collect a toll on large buses crossing the bridge. By an agreed amendment to the claim the application relates to the continuing state of affairs so far as the levying and collection of tolls on large buses is concerned, which for reasons which will become apparent in connection with the state of affairs since 2002, gives rise to somewhat different legal considerations from those which arise in connection with the 1997 to 2000 period. As to that period, the application raises an interesting point as to how far the court can supply, by a process of statutory interpretation, words which have been omitted in error by the draftsman of a Statutory Instrument. So far as the 2002 Statutory Instrument is concerned, the question is whether the drafting steps comprised in it, taken to correct the error in the previous Instrument, achieve that end. 3. The...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Gurung & Anor v Ministry of Defence, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 27, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2463 (Admin)

Case No: 3743/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 2463 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
The Law Courts 
Openshaw Place 
Ringway 
Preston PR1 2LL 

Wednesday 27 November 2002 
Before : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE McCOMBE 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between : 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Nicholas Blake QC & Aileen McColgan (instructed by Public Interest Lawyers) for the claimants 
Philip Sales & Karen Steyn (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the defendant 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 

Mr Justice McCombe: 


(A) Outline of the Application 
1. This is an application for judicial review by Mr Pahalam Gurung (``Mr Gurung''), Mr Hukumsing Pun (``Mr Pun''), Mr Gaurisor Thapa (``Mr Thapa'') brought by permission of Hooper J, granted on 28 August 2002. All three Claimants are Nepalese nationals. They are now aged 81, 85 and 82 respectively. They each were recruited in Nepal in the Army raised by the British colonial power in India known as the Government of India for service in ``the Indian Army'' and became members of the Gurkha rifle brigades. Mr Thapa describes the process of his recruitment as follows: 
2. ``......The Gallawalas (`The Recruiters') came to my village and told me that I had the chance to become a Lahore (meaning a soldier). I was young, thought that this was a good idea and agreed. I was asked to leave Nepal for the place of enrolment which was Gorakhapur in India. I believed that I was being enrolled into the British Indian Army. This was for two very good reasons: first, when I got to Gorakhapur all the officers and soldiers were British and second that impression was backed up by my knowledge that at the time India was ruled by the British and so it was not strange for me to be enrolled in India by British soldiers and officers of the Indian Army. 
3. After I was enrolled I had about one years training. I was trained by British officers and soldiers. As I successfully passed the training period I was asked to take an oath to the King of Britain. We were all asked to put on our battledress and we as a company (which is about 150 men) attended a joint ceremony of oath taking on the parade ground. The commanding officer, a colonel, read out the oath to the British King in Hindi. We were all asked to repeat the oath after him. With this passage of time and bearing in mind my age I cannot now remember the words we were asked to repeat. I do recall that I was giving an oath to obey British command and to go where I was asked by the British and to do what the British asked me to do, that is, to follow British orders.'' 2. Each of the Claimants served in the Army in the campaigns against the Japanese in the course of the Second World War. Each was captured by the Japanese and remained a prisoner of war (``P.O.W'') until t...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Butterfield & Ors v Secretary of State for Defence, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 08, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2247 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 2247 Admin PA/3/2001 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Tuesday, 8th October 2002 

B E F O R E: 

MR JUSTICE PARK 

- - - - - - - 

DAVID BUTTERFIELD AND MARY CREASEY 
(on behalf of JAMES WILLIAM BUTTERFIELD (deceased)) 
Appellant 

-v- 


SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE 
Respondent 
- - - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - 

MR P RUSSELL (instructed by Messrs Lane & Partners, London WC1A 2LS) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT 
MR S KOVATS (instructed by Treasury Solicitor, London SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT 
- - - - - - - 

J U D G M E N T 
(As approved by the Court) 

- - - - - - - 
Crown copyright© 

1. MR JUSTICE PARK: 
Overview This is an appeal against a decision of a Pensions Appeal Tribunal which on 19th September 2000 dismissed an appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State that Mr JW Butterfield did not qualify to receive a disability award or pension under the Naval Military and Air Forces Etc (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983. Mr Butterfield died in August 2000, so the appeal to the Tribunal and the further appeal to me have been prosecuted by his son and daughter on behalf of his estate. In this judgmen...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
LPC Group Plc, R (on the application of) v Leicester City Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 18, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2485 (Admin)

CO/3128/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 2485 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
The Royal Courts of Justice 
The Strand 
London WC2A 2LL 

18 October 2002 
Before: 

SIR CHRISTOPHER BELLAMY QC 
(sitting as a deputy High Court Judge) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - 

THE QUEEN 
on the application of 
LPC GROUP PLC 
Claimant 

v 

LEICESTER CITY COUNCIL 
Defendant 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Nigel Godsmark QC, instructed by Nelsons, Pennine House, 8 Stanford Street, Nottingham NF1 7BR, appeared on behalf of the claimant 

Richard Humphreys, instructed by the Assistant Head of Legal Services, Leicester City Council, New Walk Centre, Leicester LE1 6ZG, appeared on behalf of the defendant 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 


22 
Introduction 
1. The claimant, LPC Group PLC, challenges Part 207 of the New Leicester Traffic Regulation (Amendment 19) (Hamilton Industrial Estate Area Order) 2002 ("the contested order") in so far as that order prohibits vehicles waiting at any time on Hill Top Road, Leicester. The defendant, Leicester City Council, is the relevant traffic authority for the Hamilton Industrial Estate under section 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 ("the 1984 Act"). 
2. The contested order was made pursuant to sections 1 and 2 of the 1984 Act on 19 June 2002 and came into effect on 1 July 2002. Section 122 of the 1984 Act sets out certain matters that the traffic authority must take into account when exercising its functions under that Act. The procedure for making orders of the kind here in question is set out in The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, SI 1996 no. 2489 ("the 1996 Regulations"). Schedule 9, Part VI to the 1984 Act provides a specific statutory procedure for challenging certain orders made under that Act, including orders made under section 1: see paragraph 34 of that schedule. That procedure is akin to an application for judicial review: see R v Worcestershire County Council ex parte Boyden [1991] C.O.D. 31. 
3. The claim in this case was made on 5 July 2002. On 10 July 2002 Mr Justice Stanley Burnton ordered, by consent, that the provisions of the contested order be suspended until the disposal of the claim. 
The factual background 4. The geography of the case is best understood by reference to the map which forms Annex 1 to this judgment. Hill Top road is on the eastern side of the Hamilton Industrial Estate. If one travels north up Waterside Road, one turns right into Hill Top Road which, shortly afterwards, goes round to the left and then proceeds to run for about one-third of a mile in a generally north-easterly direction up to the applicant's premises. The applicant's premises are situated at 
[/align]*...

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Kennedy v CPS, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 06, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2297 (Admin)

Case No: CO/2720/2002 
Neutral Citation No. [2002] EWHC 2297 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
DIVISIONAL COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Wednesday 6th November 2002 
Before : 

LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY 
& 
MR JUSTICE PITCHERS 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between : 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Anthony Jennings QC (instructed by Freeman & Co., Manchester) for the appellant 
Steven Everett (instructed by CPS) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 

Lord Justice Kennedy : 

1. This is an appeal by way of case stated from the decision of justices sitting at Northwich who on 1st February 2002, after a contested hearing, found that the appellant on 9th September 2001 at Wilmslow, having been required to provide two specimens of breath for analysis in the course of an investigation into whether he had committed an offence under section 3A or section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, failed without reasonable excuse to provide the specimen. 
Facts. 2. At 2.40 am on 9th September 2001 PC Worthington was in a police vehicle when he saw a vehicle driven by the appellant. He followed it, caused it to stop and spoke to the appellant. The appellant was then arrested and taken to Wilmslow police station, arriving there at 3 am. The custody sergeant was dealing with another detainee so the appellant was placed...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Quintavalle, R (on the application of) v Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 20, 2002, [2003] 2 All ER 105,(2003) 70 BMLR 236,[2003] 1 FCR 664,[2002] EWHC 3000 (Admin)

Case No: CO/1162/02 
Neutral Citation No.[2002] EWHC 3000 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Friday 20 December 2002 
Before : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

THE QUEEN on the application of 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Richard Gordon QC and Martin Chamberlain (instructed by Coningsbys) for the Claimant 
Miss Dinah Rose (instructed by Morgan Cole) for the Defendant 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
JudgmentMr Justice Maurice Kay : 1. This case is concerned with human leukocyte antigen typing, which is otherwise known as tissue typing. It is a technique which enables an embryologist to ascertain whether an embryo will produce a child whose tissue will match that of an existing person. Such a match would enable that child to act as a donor for an older sibling with a serious genetic disorder by the donation of stem cell material from the umbilical cord. The issue is whether the...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Virjon B v Special Adjudicator, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 17, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1469 (Admin)

Case No.: CO/3829/2001 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1469 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Monday, 17th June 2002 
B e f o r e: 

MR JUSTICE FORBES 

- - - - - - - 

VIRJON B 
(claimant) 


-v- 


SPECIAL ADJUDICATOR 
(defendant) 

- - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the stenograph notes of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG 
Telephone No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - 

Miss R Chapman appeared on behalf of the Claimant 
Mr S Wilken appeared on behalf of the Defendant 

- - - - - - - 
J U D G M E N T 
Monday, 17th June 2002 1. MR JUSTICE FORBES: This is an application for judicial review of the decision of an Adjudicator dated 11th July 2001, whereby the claimant's appeal against the refusal by the Secretary of State to grant him refugee status was dismissed and the Secretary of State's certificate under paragraph 5(4)(b) of Schedul...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
University of Leeds v Leeds City Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 12, 2002, [2002] EWHC 738 (Admin)

Case No: CO/3904/2001 
Neutral Citation No.: [2002] EWHC 738 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Wednesday 24 April 2002 
Before : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE RICHARDS 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between : 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr Christopher Lockhart-Mummery QC and Mr John Litton (instructed by Wilbraham & Co) for the Claimant 
Mr Timothy Corner and Mr Jonathan Moffett (instructed by Solicitor to Leeds City Council) for the Defendant 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 

Mr Justice Richards: 
1. By this claim, made pursuant to s.287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the University of Leeds challenges Policy N11 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan ("the UDP") in so far as the policy notation affects part of a site at Bodington Hall adjoining the outer ring road in the Weetwood area of Leeds. 
2. Policy N11 provides: 
"On the following tracts of land, only open uses will be permitted. Building will only be allowed if it can be shown that it is necessary for the operation of farming or recreational uses and if it would not adversely affect the open character of the area: 
... 
4. Outer ring road, Weetwood ...." 3. The relevant part of the site at Bodington Hall falls within item 4 of the policy. It was included within the ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Bedford & Anor, R (on the application of) v London Borough Of Islington, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 31, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2044 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 2044 Admin 
CO/0529/2002 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
The Strand 
London 

Date: Wednesday 31 July 2002 
B e f o r e: 

MR JUSTICE OUSELEY 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

THE QUEEN 

on the application of 

(1) EDWARD BEDFORD 
(2) ELIZABETH CLARE 
Claimants 
- v - 

LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON 
Defendant 
and 

ARSENAL FOOTBALL CLUB PLC 
Interested Party 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Computer Aided Transcription by 
Smith Bernal, 190 Fleet Street, London EC4 
Telephone No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

MR ROBERT McCRACKEN, MR GREGORY JONES and MR JEREMY PIKE 
(instructed by Messrs Earthrights Solicitors, Es*** CM22 6PJ) 
appeared on behalf of THE CLAIMANTS 

MR ROBIN PURCHAS QC and MISS KAREN McHUGH 
(instructed by London Borough of Islington Legal Services 
Department) appeared on behalf of THE DEFENDANT 

MR DAVID ELVIN QC and MR DANIEL KOLINSKY (instructed by Messrs Gouldens, London EC4M 7NG) appeared on behalf of the INTERESTED PARTY 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
J U D G M E N T 
MR JUSTICE OUSELEY: 
Introduction 
1. In 1913 Arsenal Football Club (``Arsenal FC'') moved from Woolwich to Highbury Stadium in the London Borough of Islington. The advent of all-seater stadia for Premiership clubs caused a dramatic fall in its ground capacity, the seat revenue from which is a vital part of its national and international success. It concluded that the existing stadium site could not be redeveloped for a stadium of appropriate size, nor could the existing stadium be expanded to give it a capacity comparable to that of the club's major national and international rivals. Accordingly it needed to relocate. Arsenal FC wished to remain close to what for nearly 90 years has been its home location and is the largest concentration of its supporters, albeit but a small percentage of the total. 
2. After consideration of a number of alternatives, it concluded that a site at Ashburton Grove, Highbury, near to its current ground, afforded it the best opportunity. The site is largely, but not wholly, owned by the London Borough of Islington. 
3. The Club's proposals emerged publicly and formally in 1999. The London Borough of Islington produced planning briefs for public consultation and a scoping opinion for the Environmental Statement which this development would need. The development would encompass not just the new stadium at Ashburton Grove, but redevelopment at nearby Lough Road to accommodate a waste recycling centre, to be displaced from Ashburton Grove and also the redevelopment of the existing Highbury stadium site. So three sites close to one another near Highbury were involved. The range of financially enabling or supportive development involved included housing, business and community uses. The combined proposals were to provoke controversy and division amongst residents near the three sites, and indeed amongst supporters of the club. 
4. The Environmental Statement produced by the Club is a lengthy document which was subject to extensive public consultation. Eventually Islington's officers recommended that, although the proposals did not comply in a number of respects with UDP policy, planning permission should be granted. 
5. Following a Council meeting on 10 December 2001, at which local residents on both sides and the developer were heard, Islington resolved to grant planning permission for all three developments. On 30 May 2002, following the conclusion of an agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Islington granted the planning permissions. 
6. Although earlier threats of judicial review proceedings had not come to pass, judicial review proceedings which challenged the resolution of 10 December 2001 were launched by the Islington Stadium Communities Alliance (``ISCA'') and four individual local residents. Sullivan J refused permission on paper on 19 April 2002. The grounds before him were seen to have no merit and to amount to no more than a dispute about the planning merits which it was not for the court to resolve. 
7. A renewed application for judicial review was heard by Richards J. On 30 May 2002, he ordered that the applications for permission should be dealt with at the same time as the substantive hearing. He ordered consolidated grounds to be served which would cover both matters newly raised before him and those previously raised before Sullivan J insofar as they were still pursued. 8. The matter now before me is brought by only two residents. The other claimants have fallen by the wayside. The consolidated grounds in part were not really pursued, notably to the extent that they raised human rights grounds, which were misconceived and unsupported by any evidence. A number of additional grounds were sought to be raised. The grounds raised were refined and alt...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Medway Council and Kent County Council & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Transport, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 26, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2516 (Admin)


Case No: C/O 4548/2002 
C/O 4815/2002 
C/O 4896/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 2516 ADMIN 
THE IN HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Tuesday, 26 November 2002 
Before : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between : 
THE QUEEN 
On the application of 

------------------------------------------------ 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
------------------------------------------------ 

John Steel Q.C., Robert White and Stephen Whale (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard) for Claimants (1) 
Brian Ash Q.C. and Thomas Hill (instructed by Legal Services, Es*** County Council) for Claimant (2) 
John Hobson. Q.C. and Lisa Busch (instructed by Charles Russell Solicitors) for Claimants (3) 
Timothy Corner Q.C. and Robert Palmer (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendant 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
Mr Justice Maurice Kay : 

1. It is expected that the demand for air travel will rise substantially over the next thirty years. In July 2002 the Department for Transport published The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East as a Consultation Document. It invited responses by 30 November 2002. It refers to the need for a long term framework that will maximise the beneficial aspects of aviation and minimise the negative effects. It will be followed in 2003 by a White Paper on air transport which will bring together a national airports policy and new policies on civil aviation. It is concerned with ``how much extra airport capacity, if any, to plan over the next 30 years, and where should any new airport capacity be located''. Projections of increase are difficult and depend upon a range of assumptions and variables but on a basis of ``unconstrained passenger demand'' the Consultation Document forecasts an increase in the South East from 117 million passenger movements in 2000 to 301 million in 2030. On any basis such a substantial increase would necessitate an increase in airport capacity either by the expansion of existing airports or by the establishment of a new airport or by some combination of the two. The Consultation Document describes options which would involve expansion at Heathrow and Stansted (and also Luton, but that has not figured in this case). It also includes the option of a possible new airport at Cliffe in North Kent. However, conspicuous by its absence is any option for new runway capacity at Gatwick. It is stated in terms: 
``The Government will not include in the White Paper any options for new runways at Gatwick.'' This case is concerned with three challenges to the exclus...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
M, R (on the application of) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust & Ors, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 27, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1400 (Admin)

CO/1516/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1400 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
(THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT) 
Royal Courts of Justice 
The Strand 
London WC2 

Thursday 27 June 2002 
B e f o r e: 

MR JUSTICE BURTON 

- - - - - - - 

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF M 

-v- 

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST 

AND 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT 

AND 

THE GOVERNOR OF HM PRISON FULL SUTTON 

- - - - - - 
(Computer-aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited 
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG 
Telephone No: 0171-421 4040/0171-404 1400 
Fax No: 0171-831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - 
MR P BOWEN (instructed by BINDMAN & PARTNERS, LONDON WC1X 8QB) appeared on behalf of the Claimant. 
MR R CLAYTON QC (instructed by HEMPSONS SOLICITORS, PORTLAND ST, MANCHESTER, M1 3LF) appeared on behalf of the first Defendant. 
MISS J RICHARDS (instructed by THE TREASURY SOLICITOR, LONDON SW1H 9AT) appeared on behalf of the second Defendant. 
THE THIRD DEFENDANT DID NOT ATTEND AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED 
- - - - - - 
J U D G M E N T1. MR JUSTICE BURTON: In May 1989 the claimant, P.M, was convicted of three offences of rape, two of buggery, two of assault and two of false imprisonment. They were very serious offences indeed by a man who already had a considerable number of previous convictions. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. 
2. In June 1998 a psychiatric assessment of him was carried out by Dr Keitch of the Rampton Hospital. He was recognised as classifiable as psychopathically disordered within the Mental Health Act 1983 (``the MHA'') but there was considerable doubt and dispute about his treatability. Dr Keitch said as follows: 
``Various opinions have been expressed with regard to treatability and unfortunately those who were more optimistic have not been able to proceed with therapeutic interventions. As a result P.M has become ``stuck'' within the Prison System and is, at present, going nowhere.'' 
3. On January 14th 2000 a transfer direction was made under section 47 of the MHA and a restriction direction under section 49. Those sections, in relevant part, read as follows: 
``47(1) If in the case of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment the Secretary of State is satisfied, by reports from at least two registered medical practitioners- 
(a) that the said person is suffering from mental illness, psychopathic disorder, severe mental impairment or mental impairment; and 
(b) that the mental disorder from which that person is suffering is of a nature or degree which makes it appropriate for him to be detained in a hospital for medical treatment and, in the case of psychopathic disorder or mental impairment, that such treatment is likely to alleviate or prevent a deterioration of his condition; 
the Secretary of State may, if he is of the opinion having regard to the public interest and all the circumstances that it is expedient so to do, by warrant direct that that person be removed to and detained in such hospital... as may be specified in the direction; and a direction under this section shall be known as ``a transfer direction''.'' ``49(1) Where a transfer direction is given in respect of any person, the Secretary of State, if he thinks fit, may by warrant further direct that that person shall be subject to the special restrictions set ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Laing Homes Ltd. v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 01, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1967 (Admin)

Case No: CO/1337/2002 
Neutral Citation No: [2002] EWHC 1967 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Tuesday 1 October 2002 
Before : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE RICHARDS 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between : 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:               020 7421 4040         020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Robin Purchas QC and Jonathan Milner (instructed by Laing Homes) for the Claimant 
David Forsdick (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the First Defendant 
Timothy Corner QC and John Pugh Smith (instructed by Olswangs) for the Third Defendant 
(The Second Defendant did not appear nor was represented) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 



Mr Justice Richards: 
1. The claimant, Laing Homes Limited (``Laing''), challenges under s.288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 a decision of the Secretary of State dated 6 February 2002 which granted outline planning permission to Pelham Homes Limited (``Pelham'') for residential development at a site North of Whiteley, Fareham, Hampshire. 
2. At no stage prior to the decision did Laing object to Pelham's application. Its present challenge arises out of the implications that the decision, or the reasoning in it, has for Laing's own application for planning permission for residential development at a site at Peters Road, Fareham, which is still before the Secretary of State following a call-in. In essence Laing complains that, for reasons that were unknown to Laing until the decision was issued, the decision meant that only one of the sites would gain planning permission and the Secretary of State acted unlawfully and unfairly in deciding to grant permission in respect of the Pelham site without considering whether the Laing site was a better alternative or alerting Laing so that it could make representations on the point. Thus the main issues raised by Laing are (1) whether in determining the Pelham application the Secretary of State should have considered the availability and suitability of the Laing site, (2) whether it was incumbent upon him to address the issue of the comparative merits of the two sites, (3) whether he acted unfairly in failing properly to consider the merits of the Laing site or in failing to afford Laing a proper opportunity of being heard before a decision was made in respect of the Pelham site, (4) whether he failed properly to understand and apply the policy requirements of PPG3 and (5) whether adequate reasons were given. 
Factual history 
3. The relevant structure plan is the Hampshire County Structure Plan 1996-2001 (Review), adopted in January 2000. The structure plan requires constituent authorities to make provision for new housing, including a baseline housing provision in policy H2 and a reserve housing provision in policy H4. The relevant local plan is the Fareham Local Plan Review, adopted in March 2000. In order to ensure that sufficient land is available to meet the structure plan requirements for the period 1999-2006, policy H1 of the local plan allocates a number of sites for residential development, with an indicative number of dwellings for each. They include the Pelham site (260 dwellings) and the Laing site (210 dwellings), as well as a third major site at Hunts Pond Road (240 dwellings). Both the Pelham site and the Laing site are greenfield sites the development of which would constitute an urban extension in policy terms. They were the only two which were before the Secretary of State for determination at the material time. 4. The planning application in respect of the Pelham site was made on 26 November 1999. Fareham Borough Council resolved to grant outline planning permission on 26 April 2000, subject to call-in by the Secretary of State. The application was called in by the Secretary of State on 7 August 2000. A public inquiry was held on 21-22 November 2000. The inspector subsequently reported to the Secretary of State, whose decision letter ...
[/align]

*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Hollingworth, R (on the application of) v Specialist training Authority of the Medical Rolyal Colleges, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 21, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1214 (Admin)



Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2A 2LL 

Friday, June 21, 2002 
Before 

MR JUSTICE LAWRENCE COLLINS 
------------- 
Between 
CO4437/2000 
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF 
HOLLINGWORTH 
and 
THE SPECIALIST TRAINING AUTHORITY 
OF THE MEDICAL ROYAL COLLEGES 
------------- 
CO4666/2001 
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF 
KUNDU 
and 
THE SPECIALIST TRAINING AUTHORITY 
OF THE MEDICAL ROYAL COLLEGES 
------------- 
CO981/2002 
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF 
KHAN 
and 
THE SPECIALIST TRAINING AUTHORITY 
OF THE MEDICAL ROYAL COLLEGES 
------------- 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
------------- 
Mr Richard Leiper (instructed by the British Medical Association)) for the Applicants. 
Mr Philip Havers QC (instructed by Carter Lemon Camerons for the Respondents. 
------------- 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 
Crown Copyright © 

13 

Mr Justice Lawrence Collins: 
I Introduction 1. Until 1996 the only statutory requirement for appointment as a consultant in the National Health Service was that the applicant should have been a registered medical practitioner and could satisfy an Advisory Appointments Committee that the applicant met the appropriate standards. Committees convened for this purpose included assessors appointed by the Royal Colleges of Medicine who by convention could not be...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Winter v DPP, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 10, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1524 (Admin)



1 

Case No CO1986/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1524 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Wednesday 10th July 2002 
B e f o r e : 
Mr Michael Supperstone, Q.C. 
(Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between: 
LETITIA WINTER 
Appellant 

- v - 


DPP 
Respondent 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 Of...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Fox v HM Customs and Excise, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 03, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1244 (Admin)



Case No: CO387/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1244 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Wednesday 3rd July 2002 
Before : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE LIGHTMAN 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between : 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr Ian Wise (instructed by Howells, 15/17 Bridge Street, Sheffield S3 8NL) for the Appellant 
Mr Andrew Bird (instructed by Solicitor of HM Customs and Excise, New Kings Beam House, 22 Upper Ground, London SE1 9PJ) for the Respondent 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 



Mr Justice Lightman: 
INTRODUCTION 1. This is an appeal by way of Case Stated by the appellant Mr Ian Fox ("Mr Fox") against a decision dated the 11th October 2001 ("the D...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Feakins v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 20, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2574 (Admin)








Case No: CO/4303/2001 
Neutral Citation No: [2002] EWHC 2574 (Admin) 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Date: 20th December 2002 

Before : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE GOLDRING 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between : 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

STEPHEN SMITH QC AND STEPHEN TROMANS 
(instructed by BURGES SALMON SOLICITOR) for the CLAIMANT 

KENNETH PARKER QC AND PAUL HARRIS 
(instructed by DEFRA) for the DEFENDANT 

Hearing dates : 14th /15th November and 10th December 2002 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
JUDGMENT : APPROVED BY THE COURT FOR HANDING DOWN (SUBJECT TO EDITORIAL CORRECTIONS) 
Mr Justice Goldring : 
Feakins 
v 
Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 

The issue in this application 

This is an interim application in a claim against the defendant for judicial review of various decisions of what is now the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ("DEFRA"), then the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food ("MAFF"). It concerns the slaughter of the claimant's and others' animals at the claimant's farm ("Sparum Farm") during the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak. Among other things, the claimant seeks a "Mandatory Order to compel the defendant to perform her statutory duty pursuant to section 34(2) of the Animal Health Act 1981 to bury, sell or otherwise dispose of animal carcasses and the burned remains of such carcasses now lying on or in land belonging to the claimant at Sparum Farm." 

On 27 February 2002 there was a hearing before Mr. Justice Stanley Burnton. Permission to move for judicial review was granted in respect of the alleged breach of section 34(2) (as well as in respect of another alleged breach, irrelevant to the present proceedings). Permission was granted on the defendant's undertaking, 
"(a) On or before 4.00PM on 27 March 2002 to remove from...[Sparum Farm]...so far as is practicable all ash and burned or partially burned animal carcasses or parts thereof now lying upon the surface of the ground thereat and forming part of or resulting from pyres built for the purpose of destroying the carcasses of animals slaughtered by the defendant, her servants or agents pursuant to the powers granted by section 31 of the Animal Health Act 1981...[1/5/51]." 

A second undertaking concerning a lagoon was given. No issue arises regarding it. 

The issue which has now arisen 

A dispute has arisen regarding the removal of the relevant material ("the residue"). The defendant proposes to remove it directly to landfill at either Bishops Cleeve in Gloucestershire or Workington in Cumbria. The claimant contends that such removal would be unlawful. He contends that within the residue are the remains of cattle (whether burned or partially burned) born before 1 August 1996 ("old cattle"). Such is the risk of the presence of the infective protein ("prion") which causes Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy ("BSE") that the law requires the residue should first be incinerated. There is a risk of other cattle being infected by BSE. There is a risk to humans of exposure to BSE and thus to variant Creutzfeldt Jacob Disease ("vCJD"). Directly to bury the residue would be unlawful. I should grant a declaration to that effect. 
It may at first sight be thought that provided the defendant removed the residue, the claimant would have little interest in its destination. He maintains he is or would be at risk of prosecution, at risk of civil liability and that, in any event, he is seeking this declaration in the public interest. 
The facts 
They are by no means straightforward. Many are in issue. At the final hearing, there will be oral evidence. However, I have no doubt I can resolve sufficient of them to decide this application. 
The three pyres Sparum Farm is near Kidderminster in Worcestershire. It was primarily a sheep and cattle farm. On 7 March 2001 it was declared as infected by foot and mouth disease. On 9 March 2001 the animals on the farm were slaughtered on the (then) minister's orders. On about 13 March 2001 a pyre ("the first pyre") was constructed to cremate the carcasses of the claimant's animals. On 15 March 2001 it was lit. On 27 March 2001 the claimant agreed with Ministry officials to allow carcasses from neighbouring farms to be cremated on Sparum Farm for a fee. A second pyre was constructed. It was...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Environment Agency v R Newcomb & Sons Ltd. & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 16, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2095 (Admin)

Case No: CO/2508/2002 
Neutral Citation Number [2002] EWHC 2095 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Wednesday 16 October 2002 
Before : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NEWMAN 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between : 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Charles Morgan instructed by the Regional Solicitor, Environment Agency) for the Appellant 
Alec Burns (instructed by Swinburne Maddison Solicitors) for the First and Second Respondents 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
JUDGMENT 
(As approved by the Court)Mr Justice Newman : 



1. This is an appeal by way of case stated from a decision of the magistrates sitting at Hartlepool Magistrates Court. The magistrates acquitted the Respondents, being a company, R Newcomb and Sons Limited and one of its directors, Stephen Newcomb, of offences under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, brought by the Environment Agency (``the Agency). 
2. R Newcomb and Sons Limited (``the company'') owns the site at Newbourne Sidings, Coronation Drive, Seaton Carew, Hartlepool, the land in question having been purchased from Railtrack for company purposes; ultimately the creation of recreational facilities on the land in ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Mullen, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State For the Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, February 12, 2002, [2002] 3 All ER 293,[2002] 1 WLR 1857,[2002] EWHC 230 (Admin)

Case No: CO/2285/2001 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 230 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
(QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION - ADMINISTRATIVE COURT) 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Thursday 21st February 2002 
Before: 

LORD JUSTICE SIMON BROWN 

and 

MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between : 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Miss C Lloyd-Jacob (instructed by Messrs Christian Fisher) for the Claimant 
P Sales Esq & H Keith Esq (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) for the Respondent 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the Court 

Crown Copyright © 

Lord Justice Simon Brown: 
Introduction 
1. On 8th June 1990 at the Central Criminal Court the claimant was convicted of conspiracy to cause explosions likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property and was sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment. He was alleged to have acted as quartermaster for an active IRA unit in London. He had been arrested in Zimbabwe on 6th February 1989, immediately put on a plane to England and arrested on arrival at Gatwick the following day. 2. Leave to appeal against conviction out of time was granted on 19th January 1998. On 4th February 1999, after the claimant had been in prison for ten years, the Court of Appeal allowed his appeal. His deportation from Zimbabwe ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Ryder, R (on the application of) v The Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 20, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1191 (Admin)

Case No: CO/4258/2001 
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1191 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Thursday 20th June 2002 
Before : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE LIGHTMAN 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between : 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of Smith Bernal Report...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*Year 2003* 
*Year 2003*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Wandsworth Borough Council, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Transportation Local Government and the Regions & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 29, 2003, [2003] EWHC 622 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/1344/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 622 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Wednesday, 29 January 2003 
B E F O R E: 

MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN 

- - - - - - - 

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF WANDSWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL 
(CLAIMANT) 
-v- 
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS 
(DEFENDANT) 
and 
02 UK LTD 
(formerly BT Cellnet Ltd) 
(INTERESTED PARTY) 
- - - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
DR D WOLFE (instructed by ASB Law) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT 
MISS S J DAVIES (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT 
MR G ROOTS QC and MR C BOYLE (instructed by Lawrence Graham) appeared on behalf of the INTERESTED PARTY 
- - - - - - - 
J U D G M E N T 
(As Approved by the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
Crown copyright© 

1. MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN: This is a challenge by the claimant local planning authority to an inspector's decision to quash an enforcement notice served by the authority upon the interested party. The enforcement notice alleged that the interested party had erected a telecommunications mast in breach of planning control because it exceeded the 15 metre height limit upon masts that can be erected as permitted development under the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. 
2. Part 24 of Schedule 2 to the 1995 order grants planning permission for certain forms of telecommunications equipment including, subject to various conditions, masts of the kind with which this case is concerned. Condition A.1 of Part 24 states that - 
"Development is not permitted by Class ..... if - 
(a) ..... the ..... apparatus ..... excluding any antenna, would exceed a height of 15 metres above [the] ground ..... " Condition A.2 (4) sets out a procedure - before beginning development the developer must apply to the local planning authority for its determination as to whether the authority's prior approval to sit...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Jones, R (on the application of) v Mansfield District Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 20, 2003, [2003] EWHC 7 (Admin)

Case No: CO/1676/2002 
Neutral Citation No: [2003] EWHC 7 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Monday 20 January 2003 
Before : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE RICHARDS 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between : 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr David Wolfe (instructed by Public Interest Lawyers) for the Claimant 
Mr John Steel QC and Miss Sarah-Jane Davies (instructed by Browne Jacobson) 
for the Defendant 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Judgment 
As Approved by the CourtMr Justice Richards: 

1. By these proceedings the claimant challenges the grant of outline planning permission for the development of an industrial estate on a 28.4 hectare site off Abbot Road, Mansfield. The claimant lives opposite the site and at present has uninterrupted views of open countryside and uses the site for walks and other recreational purposes. Understandably she objects to the development. The legal issue, however, is whether it was reasonable for the defendant council to decide that an environmental impact assessment (``EIA'') was not required before planning permission could be granted; in particular, whether the council could reasonably conclude in the circumstances that the development was not likely to have significant effects on the environment. 
2. The council originally determined to grant outline planning permission in November 2001, but the claimant challenged the validity of that decision on the ground that it had been reached without proper consideration of whether an EIA was required. The council agreed to reconsider the question of an EIA and the challenge was withdrawn. On 25 February 2002 the council's Planning Committee reached two decisions: first, that an EIA was not required, and secondly that planning permission should be granted. The claimant challenges the first decision on the ground that it was unreasonable and unlawful, and the second decision on the ground that the grant of planning permission was flawed by the unlawful decision not to require an EIA. 
Legal framework 
3. The relevant regulations are the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988. Those regulations have been replaced by 1999 regulations in respect of applications made after 15 March 1999. The 1999 regulations are materially the same. Both sets of regulations implement Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. 
4. Regulation 4(2) of the 1988 Regulations provides: 
``The local planning authority or the Secretary of State or an inspector shall not grant planning permission pursuant to an application to which this regulation applies unless they have first taken the environmental information into consideration and state in their decision that they have done so.'' 5. The question in this case is whether the application was one to which the regulation applied. By regulation 4(1), the regulation applies inter alia to any ``Schedule 2 application'', which is defined by regulation 2(1)...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
H, R (on the application of) v DPP, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 24, 2003, [2003] EWHC 133 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/4919/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 133 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Friday, 24th January 2003 
B E F O R E: 

MR JUSTICE ELIAS 

- - - - - - - 

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF "H" 
(CLAIMANT) 

-v- 

DPP 
(DEFENDANT) 
- - - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
MISS JOANNE TALLIS (instructed by Goodall Barnet James, St Leonards on Sea, East Sus***, TN37 6AY) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT 
HUGH DAVIES (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT 
- - - - - - - 
J U D G M E N T 
(As Approved by the Court) 
- - - - - - - Crown copyright© 
[/align]*

1...

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Bernard v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 30, 2003, [2003] EWHC 147 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/4987/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 147 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Thursday, 30th January 2003 
B E F O R E: 

MR JUSTICE HENRIQUES 

- - - - - - - 

DILISSER ROY BERNARD 
(CLAIMANT) 

-v- 

DUDLEY METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL 
(FIRST DEFENDANT) 

DUDLEY MAGISTRATES' COURT 
(SECOND DEFENDANT) 
- - - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 (O...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Dhanota, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 22, 2003, [2003] EWHC 18 (Admin)

Case No: CO/5129/2001, CO/5159/2001, CO/496/2002, CO/501/2002, CO/434/2002 

Neutral Citation No: [2003] EWHC 18 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Wednesday 22 January 2003 
Before : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NEWMAN 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between : 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) - - - - - - - - - - - - - ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Wotton, R (on the application of) v Central Devon Magistrates' Court, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 27, 2003, [2003] EWHC 146 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/2946/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 146 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Monday, 27 January 2003 
B E F O R E: 

MR JUSTICE MCCOMBE 

- - - - - - - 

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF WOTTON 
(CLAIMANT) 

-v- 

CENTRAL DEVON MAGISTRATES' COURT 
(DEFENDANT) 
- - - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 (Official Shorthand Writers to the Cour...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 



Leicestershire County Council, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 20, 2003, [2003] EWHC 171 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/4566/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 171 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Monday, 20th January 2003 
B E F O R E: 

MR JUSTICE COLLINS 

- - - - - - - 

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL 
(CLAIMANT) 

-v- 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS 
(DEFENDANT) 
- - - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
MR H RICHARDS (instructed by Leicester County Council) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT 
MR T MORSHEAD (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT 
- - - - - - - 
J U D G M E N T 1. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: This case was listed before me as a renewed application for permission by the claimants, Leicestershire County Council, to seek judicial review of a refusal by an inspector appointed on behalf of the Secretary of State to confirm an order made by Leicestershire County Council proposing to modify the definitive map and statement for a particular area in Leicestershire. The effect of this was to transfer part of a public footpath, numbered B19, currently shown as running through the curtilage of Glebe Cottage, Main Street, Shangton, to pass through the curtilage of Manor Cottage, Main Street, Shangton. Permission was ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Aaalamani, R (on the application of) v General Medical Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 14, 2003, [2003] EWHC 347 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/4600/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 347 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Tuesday, 14 January 2003 

B E F O R E: 

MR JUSTICE ELIAS 

- - - - - - - 
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF PROFESSOR HOSSAIN AAALAMANI 
(CLAIMANT) 

-v- 

GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL 
(DEFENDANT) 

Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 

LITIGATION FRIEND APPEARED FOR THE CLAIMANT 
MR R ENGLEHART QC (instructed by Field Fisher Waterhouse, London EC3 N2AA) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT 

J U D G M E N T 1. MR JUSTICE ELIAS: I have before me an application made under the Data Protection Act. The application is brought by Pr...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Comninos, R (on the application of) v Bedford Borough Council & Ors, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 24, 2003, [2003] EWHC 121 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/3086/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 121 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Friday, 24 January 2003 
B E F O R E: 

MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN 
- - - - - - - 

- - - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
MR EDWARD FAULKS QC AND MR PAUL STAGG (instructed by Weightman Vizards, WC1V 6RL) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT 
MR JAMES GOUDIE QC (instructed by Bedford Borough Council) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT 
MR PETER OLDHAM (instructed by Peter Ruck Partners, EC4A 3JB) appeared on behalf of the SECOND INTERESTED PARTY 
Friday, 24 January 2003 
- - - - - - - 
J U D G M E N T 
MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN: 
Introduction 
1. The claimant is the auditor appointed by the Audit Commission under the Audit Commission Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) to audit the accounts of the defendant, Bedford Borough Council. Section 24(1) of the 1998 Act gives the claimant power, subject to section 31(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (the 1981 Act) to apply for judicial review in relation to any decision of the defendant which affects its accounts. In these proceedings the claimant challenges the defendant's decision to give financial support to libel claims brought by three council officers: Mr Field, the chief executive, who is also the returning officer for Bedford with responsibility for elections within the borough; Mr Gough, the borough solicitor and the council's statutory monitoring officer; and Mr Darkoh, a barrister employed by the council's legal department (the first, second and third interested parties respectively) against the fifth and sixth interested parties, and to indemnify the officers against the potential costs liabilities arising out of their claims. 
Background Facts 
2. The background facts are not in dispute and, since the claimant's challenge is presented as one of principle -- a Local Authority does not have power, under any circumstances, to fund libel proceedings by its officers or to indemnify them against the costs of such proceedings -- it is unnecessary to rehearse them in any great detail. In brief outline, there were elections to the defendant council in May 2000. In one of the 18 wards (Brickhill) an envelope containing 86 postal votes was overlooked. After two recounts the conservative candidate was declared the winner with a majority of nine votes. An informal count of the postal votes showed that, if they had been included, the outcome would have been the same, but the conservative majority would have been reduced from nine to six. 
3. In an attempt to regularise matters, Mr Field, in his capacity as returning officer, made an application to the County Court under rule 47 of the Local Elections (Principal Areas) Rules 1986 for the formal inspection of the ballot papers. Although well-intentioned, this application was, to use a neutral word, ineffective. The judgment of Gray J in the libel proceedings dated 1 March 2002 considers this aspect of the case in great detail. I am told that Mr Gough is appealing against Gray J's judgment. In the circumstances, I say no more about the decision to make the application under rule 47. 4. The fifth interested party, Mr Lister, who was the local agent for the Conservative Party, issued a press release to the Bedfordshire on Sunday newspaper, a loca...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Grantchester Retail Parks Plc v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 15, 2003, [2003] EWHC 92 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/3736/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 92 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Wednesday, 15th January 2003 
B E F O R E: 

MR JUSTICE JACKSON 

- - - - - - - 

GRANTCHESTER RETAIL PARKS PLC 
(CLAIMANT) 

-v- 

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS 
(DEFENDANT) 
LUTON BOROUGH COUNCIL 
(INTERESTED PARTY) 
- - - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
MR DANIEL KOLINSKY and MR SCOTT LYNESS (instructed by Denton Wilde Sapte, 5 Chancery Lane, London, EC4A 1BU) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT 
MR PAUL BROWN (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT 
- - - - - - - 
J U D G M E N T 
(As approved by the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
Crown copyright© 

1. MR JUSTICE JACKSON: This judgment is in six parts: namely, part 1, introduction; part 2, the facts; part 3, the present proceedings; part 4, the inspector's decision; part 5, the individual grounds of challenge; and part 6, conclusion. 
Part one: Introduction 
2. This is an application pursuant to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (to which I shall refer as "the 1990 Act") to quash a decision of the first defendant. That decision was made on the first defendant's behalf by his inspector. In...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Robertson, R (on the application of) v South Western Magistrates' Court, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 15, 2003, [2003] EWHC 63 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/3879/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 63 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
DIVISIONAL COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Wednesday, 15th January 2003 
B E F O R E: 

LORD JUSTICE CLARKE 

MR JUSTICE JACK 

- - - - - - - 

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF ROBERTSON 
(CLAIMANT) 

-v- 

SOUTH WESTERN MAGISTRATES' COURT 
(DEFENDANT) 
- - - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
MR N LEY (instructed by Byrne Frodsham & Co, Widnes) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT 
The DEFENDANT did not appear and was not represented 
MISS A POWER (instructed by CPS Kingston Branch) appeared on behalf of the INTERESTED PARTY 
- - - - - - - 
J U D G M E N T 
(As approved by the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
Crown copyright© 
Wednesday, 15th January 2002 
1. LORD JUSTICE CLARKE: On 23rd May 2002 the claimant, Mr Eric Robertson, was convicted by District Judge Grant at South Western Magistrates' Court of an offence of driving with excess alcohol on 5th August 2001, contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 ("the 1988 Act"). He was fined and disqualified from driving for one year. On 10th June 2002 he made an application that the District Judge state a case for the opinion of the High Court asking seven questions. On 25th June 2002 the District Judge refused to state a case on the ground that the application was frivolous. He issued a certificate, which includes the following: "I am of the opinion that the application is frivolous and so refuse to state a case on the basis that the Application requ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Regester & Ors, R (on the application of) v Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 17, 2003, [2003] EWHC 235 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/2587/4182/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 235 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Friday, 17 January 2003 
B E F O R E: 

MR JUSTICE CHARLES 

- - - - - - - 

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF 
(1) SOPHIE REGESTER AND OTHERS 
(2) SHARON PERKINS AND OTHERS 
(CLAIMANT) 

-v- 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY COURT ADVISORY AND SUPPORT SERVICE 
(DEFENDANT) 
- - - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
MR ROBIN SPON SMITH AND MR STEPHEN CRAGG (instructed by Messrs Harman and Harman, Canterbury, CT2 8BP) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT 
MR NIGEL GIFFIN (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor, London, SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT 
- - - - - - - 
J U D G M E N T 
(As Approved by the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
Crown copyright© 

MR JUSTICE CHARLES: 
Introduction. 
1. This judgment relates to conjoined applications for a judicial review in two cases. At issue in both cases is the provision by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service ("CAFCASS") of an officer of that service for appointment by the court as a children's guardian in specified proceedings under the Children Act 1989. Expressions used in this paragraph are defined in legislation referred to later in this judgment. When I refer to a guardian, I am rferring to a children's guardian as so defined. 
2. In the cases under the Children Act 1989 giving rise to these proceedings, the local authority sought and was granted interim care orders ("ICOs"). In one of them the children had been removed from home before the making of the ICOs, first by being taken into police protection and then pursuant to Emergency Protection Orders ("EPOs"). In the other the child remained with her mother in a refuge following the making of the ICO but was later removed by the local authority pursuant to the powers and duties given to it by the ICO on the basis of an assertion that the mother had broken the agreement pursuant to which the local authority agreed that the child should be placed with her at a refuge. An application to discharge the ICO was refused. An ICO was continued on the basis that the child was not returned to the care of her mother. 
3. When the EPO was made in the first case a guardian had been appointed but that guardian was not available for appointment in the later proceedings for a care order. In both cases the ICOs I have referred to were made before a guardian was appointed. In the second case a guardian was not made available for appointment until after the application to discharge the ICO had been dealt with. Solicitors acting for the children in both cases did not oppose the making of the ICOs and, in the second case, opposed the discharge of the ICO. 
4. The subject cases therefore involve three of the possible situations when a child is removed compulsorily from the care of his family. Another is removal as a consequence of the making of the first EPO or ICO. When a child is removed and taken into police protection, the maximum period that he or she can be so removed is 72 hours. After that, further placement away from the family has to be pursuant to a court order or by agreement with the persons having parental responsibility for the child. 5. The subject cases therefore involve compulsory removal of children from their homes. This is, of course, a very serious step in respect of th...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Vousden, R (on the application of) v Special Adjudicator Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 28, 2003, [2003] EWHC 123 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/3357/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 123 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Tuesday, 28 January 2003 
B E F O R E: 
MR JUSTICE HOOP...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
C & Anor, R (on the application of) v Sheffield Youth Court & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 23, 2003, [2003] EWHC 35 (Admin)

Case Nos: CO/3871/2002 and CO/3876/2002 

Neutral Citation No.: [2003] EWHC 35 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Thursday 23 January 2003 
Before: 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE STANLEY BURNTON 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Stephen Simblet and Emma Favata (instructed by Howells) for the Claimants in each case. 
Stephen John (instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions) 
for the Interested Party in each case. 
The Defendant Court did not appear and was not represented. 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
JudgmentMr Justice Stanley Burnton: 

Introduction 
1. I have before me applications for orders to quash decisions of the Sheffield Youth Court made in July of this year committing the Claimants, all of whom are aged 14, for trial to the Crown Court on charges of robbery and attempted robbery. There have been a number of such applications during the course of this year. Mr John, on behalf of the CPS, submits that there are conflicting decisions of the High Court on two questions: 
(a) the matters to be taken into account by the Youth Court when making its decision under section 24(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 as amended (`the MCA'); and 
(b) the test to be applied by the High Court on an application for the judicial review of such a decision. 2. Mr John submitted that the only matter to be taken into account by the Youth Court in deciding on venue under section 24(1) is the appropriate sentence for the defendant before it: does it consider that if found guilty it ought to be possible to sentence him pursuant to section 91(3) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (`PCCSA'). As I understood him, Mr Simblet submitted that the Youth Court could and should take other matters into account, and in particular the unsuitability of the Crown Court for the trial of young persons. On issue (b), Mr John submitted that the High Court could only interfere with a decision of the Youth Court if it were Wednesbury unreasonable: i.e., if the traditional judicial review test were satisfied. Mr Simblet submitted that it was sufficient for the High Court to conclude that the decision of the Youth Court was wrong. On both these issues, Mr John submitted that the more recent decisions of the High Court, in the Manchester, Thetford and Southampton cases, to which I refer below, were made in ignorance of previous inconsistent decisions in Cushion and Devizes; that the more recent decisions are wrong, and that I should therefore follow the earlier decisions. Mr Simblet, for the C...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
E, R (on the application of) v Leeds Youth Court Justices & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 31, 2003, [2003] EWHC 173 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/4152/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 173 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
DIVISIONAL COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Friday, 31 January 2003 
B E F O R E: 

LORD JUSTICE CLARKE 

MR JUSTICE JACK 

- - - - - - - 

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF E 
(BY HIS FATHER AS LITIGATION FRIEND) 
(CLAIMANT) 

-v- 

LEEDS YOUTH COURT JUSTICES 
(DEFENDANT) 
CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE (INTERESTED ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Cunningham v Exeter Crown Court, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 28, 2003, [2003] EWHC 184 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/3092/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 184 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
DIVISIONAL COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Tuesday, 28 January 2003 
B E F O R E: 

LORD JUSTICE CLARKE 

MR JUSTICE JACK 

- - - - - - - 

PATRICK JAMES ALEXANDER CUNNINGHAM 
(CLAIMANT) 

-v- 

EXETER CROWN COURT 
(DEFENDANT) 
- - - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
MR KERRY BARKER (instructed by Crosse & Crosse, Exeter EX4 3PU) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT 
THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT REPRESENTED 
- - - - - - - 
J U D G M E N T 
(As Approved by the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
Crown copyright© 
Tuesday, 28 February 2003 
Judgment 
1. LORD JUSTICE CLARKE: This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Crown Court at Exeter. On 28 November 2001, the Magistrates' Court at Exeter fined the claimant, Patrick Cunningham, £15,000 for an offence of knowing that a place in respect of which a public entertainments licence
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Ratnam, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 30, 2003, [2003] EWHC 398 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/1568/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 398 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Thursday, 30 January 2003 
B E F O R E: 

MR JUSTICE JACKSON 

- - - - - - - 

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF SIVASORUBA RATNAM 
(CLAIMANT) 

-v- 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT 
(DEFENDANT) 
- - - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
MS S JEGARAJAH (instructed by M.K Sri & Co, Middle*** HA1 2TN) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT 
MISS K STERN (instructed by Treasury Solicitor, London SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT 
Thursday, 30 January 2002. 
- - - - - - - 
J U D G M E N T 
1. MR JUSTICE JACKSON: My judgment in this claim for judicial review falls into four parts. Part 1: the facts. Part 2: the present proceedings. Part 3: the law. Part 4: conclusion. 
Part 1: The Facts 2. The claimant is a 36 year-old citizen of Sri Lanka of Tamil origin. She arrived in the United Kingdom on 27 Apri...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Das, R (on the application of) v General Medical Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 24, 2003, [2003] EWHC 132 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/4624/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 132 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Friday, 24th January 2003 
B E F O R E: 

MR JUSTICE ELIAS 

- - - - - - - 

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF DAS 
(CLAIMANT) 

-v- 

GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL 
(DEFENDANT) 
- - - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 (Official Shortha...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
North Devon District Council v First Secretary of State, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 30, 2003, [2003] EWHC 157 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/4245/02 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 157 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Thursday, 30 January 2003 
B E F O R E: 

MR JUSTICE COLLINS 

- - - - - - - 

NORTH DEVON DISTRICT COUNCIL 
(CLAIMANT) 

-v- 

THE FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE 
(DEFENDANT) 
- - - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:               020 7404 1400         020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
MR DH FLETCHER (instructed by North Devon District Council, Civic Centre, Barnstaple, Devon EX31 1EA) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT 
MR M GIBBONS (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT 
- - - - - - - J U D G M E N T1. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: This appeal raises a short but not at all easy point of construction of two classes set out in the Use Classes Order of 1987. The two classes are contained in Part C and are: Class C2, which is headed "residential institutions", and Class C3 which is headed "dwelling houses". The question is whether the situation in this case fell within C2 or C3. There is a subsidiary question relating to whether even if it was within C2, nonetheless there was a material change of use from its C3 use as a dw...
[/align]

*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Chief Constable of Lancashire v Potter, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 24, 2003, [2003] EWHC 74 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/5152/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 74 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
DIVISIONAL COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Friday, 24 January 2003 
B E F O R E: 

LORD JUSTICE CLARKE 

MR JUSTICE JACK 

- - - - - - - 

CHIEF CONSTABLE OF LANCASHIRE 
(CLAIMANT) 

-v- 

LISA POTTER 
(DEFENDANT) - - - - - - - 
[/align]*
...

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Hayes, R (on the application of) v Chelmsford Crown Court, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 22, 2003, [2003] EWHC 73 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/4830/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 73 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Wednesday, 22 January 2003 
B E F O R E: 

MR JUSTICE HENRIQUES 

- - - - - - - 

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF SEAN HAYES 
(APPELLANT) 

-v- 

CHELMSFORD CROWN COURT 
(RESPONDENT) 
- - - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
MISS C GARDINER (instructed by Harris, Clifford and Nichols, Es***) appeared on behalf of the APPELLANT 
MR R OVERBURY (instructed by Es*** Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the RESPONDENT 
- - - - - - - 
J U D G M E N T 
(As Approved by the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
Crown copyright© 
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 1. MR JUSTICE HENRIQUES
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Grant v Director of Public Prosecutions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 22, 2003, [2003] EWHC 130 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/2634/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 130 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
DIVISIONAL COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Wednesday, 22nd January 2003 
B E F O R E: 

LORD JUSTICE CLARKE 

MR JUSTICE JACK 

- - - - - - - 

GRANT 
(CLAIMANT) 

-v- 

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS 
(DEFENDANT) 
- - - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - 

MR N LEY (instructed by Linn & Associates, Harwich) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT 
MR J CAUDLE (instructed by CPS Es***, Chelmsford) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT 
- - - - - - - 
J U D G M E N T 
(As approved by the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
Crown copyright© 
Wednesday, 22nd January 2002 
LORD JUSTICE CLARKE: 
Introduction 
1. On 31 October 2001 the appellant, Steven Grant, was convicted by a District Judge sitting in the South East Es*** Magistrates' Court at Southend of failing without reasonable excuse to provide a specimen of breath contrary to section 6(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 ("the 1988 Act") and of driving while the proportion of alcohol in his blood exceeded the prescribed limit contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the 1988 Act. The offences occurred on 10th April 2001 at Boreham in Es***. 2. The proportion of alcohol in the appellant's breath was 58 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. He was fined £100 and his licence was endorsed for the first offence and he was fined £600, ordered to pay £750 costs and disqualif...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Mulholland, R (on the application of) v HM Coroner for St. Pancras, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 16, 2003, [2003] EWHC 96 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/950/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 96 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Thursday, 16 January 2003 
B E F O R E: 

MR JUSTICE CRANE 

- - - - - - - 

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF MULHOLLAND 
(CLAIMANT) 

-v- 
HM CORONER FOR ST. PANCRAS 
[/align]*
...

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Graham, R (on the application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 22, 2003, [2003] EWHC 120 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/2693/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 120 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
DIVISIONAL COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Wednesday, 22nd January 2003 
B E F O R E: 

LORD JUSTICE CLARKE 

MR JUSTICE JACK 

- - - - - - - 

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF GRAHAM 
(CLAIMANT) 

-v- 

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS 
(DEFENDANT) 
- - - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
MR A GRAHAM appeared in person on behalf of the CLAIMANT MR M SEYMOUR (instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions) appeared ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

[align=left] 


*Graham, R (on the application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 22, 2003, [2003] EWHC 120 (Admin)*

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/2693/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 120 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
DIVISIONAL COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Wednesday, 22nd January 2003 
B E F O R E: 

LORD JUSTICE CLARKE 

MR JUSTICE JACK 

- - - - - - - 

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF GRAHAM 
(CLAIMANT) 

-v- 

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS 
(DEFENDANT) 
- - - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:  *  020 7404 1400*   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
MR A GRAHAM appeared in person on behalf of the CLAIMANT MR M SEYMOUR (instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions) appeared ...
[/align]

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Director of Public Prosecutions v Dibley, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 24, 2003, [2003] EWHC 122 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/4382/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 122 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
DIVISIONAL COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Friday, 24 January 2003 
B E F O R E: 

LORD JUSTICE CLARKE 

MR JUSTICE JACK 

- - - - - - - 

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS 
(APPELLANT) 

-v- 

JAMIE MARK DIBLEY 
(RESPONDENT) 
- - - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - MR A POTE a...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Gill, R (on the application of) v Lord Chancellor's Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 27, 2003, [2003] EWHC 156 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/221/02 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 156 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Monday, 27 January 2003 
B E F O R E: 

MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY 

- - - - - - - 

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF GILL 
(CLAIMANT) 

-v- 

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT 
(DEFENDANT) 
- - - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
MR GILL APPEARED IN PERSON 
MR G CLARKE (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT 
- - - - - - - J U D G M E N T1. MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY: This is an application for judicial review brought by Mr Gordon Gill. For a number of years he sat as a Justice of the Peace in Newcastle Upon Tyne. The decision which he seeks to challenge is a decision of the Lord Chancellor removing him from office. By section 5 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 it is the Lord Chancellor who appoints Justices of the Peace and it is in the Lord Chancellor that there is vested the power of removal. In order to assist him i...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Louis Hardy Charlebois v Director of Public Prosecutions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 14, 2003, [2003] EWHC 54 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/4005/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 54 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Tuesday, 14th January 2003 
B E F O R E: 

MR JUSTICE HOOPER 

- - - - - - - 

LOUIS HARDY CHARLEBOIS 
(CLAIMANT) 

-v- 

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS 
(DEFENDANT) 
- - - - - - - Computer-Aided Transcri...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Zaher v City of Westminster, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 28, 2003, [2003] EWHC 101 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/4262/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 101 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Tuesday, 28th January 2003 
B E F O R E: 

MR JUSTICE MCCOMBE 

- - - - - - - 

IBRAHIM ZAHER 
(CLAIMANT) 

-v- 

CITY OF WESTMINSTER 
(DEFENDANT) 
- - - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
MR MARTIN RUSSELL (instructed by Moss Beachley Mullem & Coleman, London, W1H 1HA) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT 
MR DAVID WARNER (instructed by City of Westminster Council, SW1E) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT 
- - - - - - - 
J U D G M E N T 
(As approved by the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
Crown copyright© 

1. MR JUSTICE MCCOMBE: This is a judgment given on the adjourned hearing of an application for permission to apply for judicial review. The applicant is Mr Ibrahim Zaher, and the proposed defendant is the City of Westminster, which I shall call "Westminster". The claim is for review of Westminster's failure to review the claimant's housing needs or to transfer the claimant from what he submits is unsuitable accommodation, in which he is presently housed. 2. The claimant alleges that Westminster has failed properly to discharge its functions under the Housing Act 1996. I should say ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Secretary of State for the Home Department, R (on the application of) v Chief Asylum Support Adjudicator, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, February 10, 2003, [2003] EWHC 269 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/4018/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 269 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Monday, 10 February 2003 
B E F O R E: 

MR JUSTICE TOULSON 

- - - - - - - 

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT 
(CLAIMANT) 

-v- 

CHIEF ASYLUM SUPPORT ADJUDICATOR 
(DEFENDANT) 
NICLETTE MANZANA 
(INTERESTED PARTY) 
- - - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
MR G CLARKE (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT 
MR N GIFFIN (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT 
- - - - - - - 
J U D G M E N T MR JUSTICE TOULSON: 

The facts 
1. Ms Niclette Manzana is Congolese. She entered the United Kingdom on a date unknown. On 3 June 1998 she applied for asylum and was given a standard acknowledgment letter ("SAL") issued by the Home Office's Immigration and Nationality Department office in Croydon. 2. On 31 July 2001 Ms Manzana made a written application to the National Asylum Support Service ("NASS") for asylum support. NASS is an agency of the Home Office. In the application form she stated that she had applied for asylum on 5 February 1996. She enclosed
[/align]*...

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Norwood v Director of Public Prosecutions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 03, 2003, [2003] EWHC 1564 (Admin)

Case No: CO/1742/2003 
Neutral Citation No: [2003] EWCH 1564 (QB) 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (DIVISIONAL COURT) 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 
Date: 3rd July 2003 
Before : 
LORD JUSTICE AULD 
and 
MR JUSTICE GOLDRING 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between : 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Miss C Miskin (Instructed by Hallinan, Blackburn, Gittings & Nott) for the Appellant 
Mrs Janet Pitt-Lewis (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) for the Respondent 
Hearing dates : 11th June 2003 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
JUDGMENT : APPROVED BY THE COURT FOR HANDING DOWN (SUBJECT TO EDITORIAL CORRECTIONS)Lord Justice Auld : 
1. The appellant appeals by way of case stated from his conviction by District Judge Browning at Oswestry Magistrates Court on 13th December 2002, of an offence of causing alarm or distress under section 5 (1) (b) of the Public Order Act 1986, aggravated in the manner provided by sections 28 and 31 of the Crime and Disorder act 1998 (as amended by section 39 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001). 
The nature of the statutory offence charged 
2. Section 5 provides, so far as material: 
"(1) a person is guilty of an offence if he; .... (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. 
(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place .... (3) It is a defence for the accused to prove - (a) that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to b...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Hoar-Stevens v Richmond Magistrates' Court, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 23, 2003, [2003] EWHC 2660 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/3262/2003 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 2660 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
DIVISIONAL COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

-- Thursday, 23 October 2003 

B E F O R E: 

LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY 

MR JUSTICE ROYCE 


- - - - - - - 
HOAR-STEVENS 
(CLAIMANT) 
-v- 

RICHMOND MAGISTRATES' COURT 
(DEFENDANT) 
CHRISTOPHER BOUCHER 
(INTERESTED PARTY) 
- - - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
MR JEREMY CARTER-MANNING QC and MR PHILLIP LUCAS (instructed by Edward Fail Neale & Co of Twickenham) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT MRS KIM HOLLIS QC and MISS A POWER (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service, Kings...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Pybus v Law Society, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 14, 2003, [2003] EWHC 2528 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/4425/02 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 2528 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
DIVISIONAL COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Tuesday, 14 October 2003 

B E F O R E: 

LORD JUSTICE BROOKE 

MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN 


- - - - - - - 
PYBUS 
(CLAIMANT) 

-v- 

THE LAW SOCIETY 
(DEFENDANT) 
- - - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
MR PYBUS APPEARED IN PERSON 
MR PH CADMAN (SOLICITOR ADVOCATE) (instructed by Penningtons, Bucklesbuoy Hse, 83 Cannon Street, EC4) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT 
- - - - - - - 
J U D G M E N T 
1. MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN: This is an appeal against an order of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal that the appellant should be struck off the Roll of Solicitors. The appeal is against both conviction and sentence. The Tribunal's order was dated and filed with the Law Society on 6th June 2002. The Tribunal's findings dated 22nd August 2002 were filed with the Law Society on 28th August. Rules of the Supreme Court Order 106 deals with proceedings in relation to solicitors. Rule 12(3) provides as follows: 
"The appellant's notice must be filed at the court within 14 days after the date on which a statement of the tribunal's findings was filed pursuant to section 48(1)." 
The reference there is to section 48(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974. 2. Section 47 of the 1974 Act makes provisi...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Batchelor Enterprises Ltd., R (on the application of) v North Dorset District Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 28, 2003, [2003] EWHC 3006 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/2791/2003 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 3006 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Friday, 28 November 2003 

B E F O R E: 

MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN 

- - - - - - - 
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF BATCHELOR ENTERPRISES LIMITED 
(CLAIMANT) 

-v- 

NORTH DORSET DISTRICT COUNCIL 
- - - - - - - 
(DEFENDANT) 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
MR JAMES FINDLAY (instructed by Battens Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT 
MR PETER HARRISON (instructed by Legal Services, North Dorset District Council) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT 
- - - - - - - 
J U D G M E N T 
1. MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN: 
Introduction 
2. This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the defendant's Development Control Committee on 29 April 2003, communicated to the claimant on 6 May, not to agree to a request under section 106A(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ("the Act") to modify an agreement made under section 106 of the Act dated 30 July 1999 ("the agreement") relating to land known as Oakcrest Service Station, Bournemouth Road, Charlton Marshall, Dorset ("the site"). 
The factual background 3. The claimant owns the site and applied for planning permission to redevelop the former service station with five houses in January 1999. Planning permission was granted on 3 August 1999, after the claimant had entered into the agreement. The site is situated at the junction between the A350 Bournemouth Road, a busy main road, and Greenfield Road. As Greenfield Road approaches Bournemouth Road it splits into two, which for convenience I will refer to as access A and access B. A grassed "island" of land was enclosed between accesses A and B and the Bournemouth Road. It seems that when the service station was in use as such, access B went across part of the forecourt. At the time that planning permission was granted in August 1999 it was not appreciated by either the claimant or the defendant that the access to the A350 across the forecourt was, at least in part, a publi...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
S v Director of Public Prosecutions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 03, 2003, [2003] EWHC 2717 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 

CO/1381/2003 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 2717 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION DIVISIONAL CO...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Director of Public Prosecutions v Kennedy, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 24, 2003, [2003] EWHC 2583 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
C0/2863/2003 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 2583 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
DIVISIONAL COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Friday, 24 October 2003 

B E F O R E: 

LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY 

MR JUSTICE ROYCE 


- - - - - - - 
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS 
(CLAIMANT) 

-v- 

KENNEDY 
(DEFENDANT) 
- - - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
MR S NEALE (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT 
MR S EVERETT (instructed by Messrs Freeman & Co, Rhodesia House, 52 Princess Street, Manchester M16JX) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT 
- - - - - - - 
J U D G M E N T 1. LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY: This is a prosecutor's appeal by way of case stated from a decision of justices for Greater Manchester sitting at Trafford, who on 2nd April of this y...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
South Wales Police Authority v Morgan, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 08, 2003, [2003] EWHC 2274 (Admin)



Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 2274 (Admin) 

Case No: CO/1193/2003 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Date: 8 October 2003 

Before : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE STANLEY BURNTON 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between : 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


Hearing date: 31 July 2003 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Approved Judgment 


Mr Justice Stanley Burnton : 
Introduction 1. In these proceedings, the Claimant, the South Wales Police Authority, seeks an order quashing the decision made by Dr Jeffrey Morgan under regulation H2 of the Police Pensions Regulations 1987 (``the Regulations''), contained in his report dated 1 December 2002, on an appeal brought by Mr Lewis-Davidson, a former police officer, in which Dr Morgan assessed Mr Lewis-Davidson's disablement ``attributable to an injury sustained in relation to his employment'' to be at the major level, i.e., 51 to 75 per cent. The Claimant submits that Dr Morgan erred in law by attributing injuries to Mr Lewis-Davids...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
KW, R (on the application of) v Special Educational Needs Tribunal & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 21, 2003, [2003] EWHC 1770 (Admin)


Page 1 


Case No: CO/1581/2003 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC1770 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 

Monday 21st July 2003 

Before : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MACKAY 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between : 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr. D. Wolfe (instructed by ?Levenes solicitors) for the Appellant 
Mr. J. Findlay (instructed by Rochdale Borough Council Solicitors) for the 2nd Respondent 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Judgment 
Mr Justice Mackay: 1. This is a statutory appeal against a decision of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (the Tribunal) relating to a 12 year old girl whom I will call `I'. She had been born extremely prematurely and as a result suffered grievous problems. She is totally blind due to retinopathy of prematurity and also has severe global developmental delay. Her learning and visual difficulties interact and together impede the development of her skills in all areas of her life. Although now chronologically aged 12 she operates at a pre-school level in most areas of functioning, that is social, sensory-motor...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Director of Public Prosecutions v Ubhi, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, February 11, 2003, [2003] EWHC 619 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/4933/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 619 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Tuesday, 11 February 2003 
B E F O R E: 

MR JUSTICE MOSES 

- - - - - - - 

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS 
(CLAIMANT) 

-v- 

MANJIT SINGH UBHI 
(DEFENDANT) 
- - - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
MR M ASPINALL (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT 
MR D WATSON (instructed by Patience, Claridge and Burrowes) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT 
Tuesday, 11 February 2003 
- - - - - - - J U D ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Saxonbest Ltd., R (on the application of) v London Borough of Bromley, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 21, 2003, [2003] EWHC 2508 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/2378/2003 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 2508 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Tuesday, 21st October 2003 

B E F O R E: 

MR JUSTICE HENRIQUES 

- - - - - - - 
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF SAXONBEST LIMITED 
(CLAIMANT) 

-v- 

THE LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY 
(DEFENDANT) 
- - - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 (Off...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 



W, R (on the application of) v Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 17, 2003, [2003] EWHC 2880 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/4055/2003 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 2880 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Monday, 17th November 2003 

B E F O R E: 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE OWEN 

- - - - - - - 
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF 
JANE WILSON 
(APPELLANT) 

-v- 

(1) BLAENAU GWENT COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL 
(2) SIMON WHITBOURN (CHAIR OF SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS TRIBUNAL) 
(RESPONDENTS) 
- - - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
MR DAVID WOLFE appeared on behalf of the APPELLANT 
MR PETER OLDHAM appeared on behalf of the RESPONDENTS 
- - - - - - - 
J U D G M E N T 
Monday, 17th November 2003 1. MR JUSTICE OWEN: This is an appeal against a decision of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal, "the Tribunal", dated 30th July 2003 by which it upheld the decision of the Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council, "the Local Educatio...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
W, R (on the application of) v Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 17, 2003, [2003] EWHC 2880 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/4055/2003 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 2880 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Monday, 17th November 2003 

B E F O R E: 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE OWEN 

- - - - - - - 
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF 
JANE WILSON 
(APPELLANT) 

-v- 

(1) BLAENAU GWENT COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL 
(2) SIMON WHITBOURN (CHAIR OF SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS TRIBUNAL) 
(RESPONDENTS) 
- - - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
MR DAVID WOLFE appeared on behalf of the APPELLANT 
MR PETER OLDHAM appeared on behalf of the RESPONDENTS 
- - - - - - - 
J U D G M E N T 
Monday, 17th November 2003 1. MR JUSTICE OWEN: This is an appeal against a decision of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal, "the Tribunal", dated 30th July 2003 by which it upheld the decision of the Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council, "the Local Educatio...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Kurdu, R (on the application of) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, February 27, 2003, [2003] EWHC 339 (Admin)

Case No: CO/5230/01 
Neutral Citation:[2003] EWHC 339 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL 

Thursday 27th February 2003 
Before : 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TOULSON 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Between : 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited, 190 Fleet Street 
London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7421 4040   020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr Duran SEDDON (instructed by Elder Rahimi Solicitors) for the Claimant 
Mr Parishil PATEL (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendant 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
JudgmentMr Justice TOULSON: 
Introduction 1. The Claimant applies for judicial review of a decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (IAT), dated 18 September 2001, refusing him leave to appeal from a decision of an Adjudicator, dated 20 August 2001. The Adjudicator, Miss A L Sawetz, had dismissed his appeal from a decision, made on 21 March 2001, by the Secretary of State ...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Mohamed, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 16, 2003, [2003] EWHC 1530 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 

CO/23/2003 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 1530 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Monday, 16 June 2003 

B E F O R E: 

MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY 

- - - - - - - 
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF MOHAMED 
(CLAIMANT) 

-v- 

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT 
(DEFENDANT) 
- - - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
MS WEBBER (instructed by WINSTANLEY-BURGESS) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT 
MR SAINI (instructed by TREASURY SOLICITOR) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT 
- - - - - - - 
J U D G M E N T 
(As Approved by the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
Crown copyright© 
1. MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY: By this application for judicial review, the claimant seeks to challenge the lawfulness of his detention pursuant to the Immigration Act 1971, following his successful appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. The claimant is f...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Shirzadeh v Maidstone Magistrates' Court, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, August 21, 2003, [2003] EWHC 2216 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 

CO/2148/2003 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 2216 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
DIVISIONAL COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Thursday, 21 August 2003 

B E F O R E: 

MR JUSTICE HOOPER 

MR JUSTICE CRANE 


- - - - - - - 
JAMSHID SHIRZADEH 
(CLAIMANT) 

-v- 

MAIDSTONE MAGISTRATES' COURT 
(DEFENDANT) 
- - - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
MR J HALL (instructed by Gulland & Gulland, 10 Mill Street, Maidstone, Kent ME15 6XT) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT 
MR G POTTINGER (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT 
- - - - - - - 
J U D G M E N T 
(As Approved by the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
Crown copyright© 
1. MR JUSTICE CRANE: The claimant applies for judici...
[/align]*

----------


## هيثم الفقى

*[align=left] 
Kaya, R (On the Application Of) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 04, 2003, [2003] EWHC 2716 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE 
CO/1889/2003 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 2716 Admin 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand 
London WC2 

Tuesday, 4th November 2003 

B E F O R E: 

WYN WILLIAMS QC 
(Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) 

- - - - - - - 
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF SALIH KAYA 
(CLAIMANT) 

-v- 

IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL 
(DEFENDANT) 
- - - - - - - 
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG 
Tel No:    020 7404 1400   020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - 
MR J COLLINS (instructed by J R JONES) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT MR A O'CONNOR (instructed by TREASURY SOLICITOR) a...
[/align]*

----------

