case summaries

The following notes of cases were prepared by the reporters of the All England Law Reports.

Child support

Bv Secretary of State for Social Services; Fam (Thorpe J); 21 Dec 1994.

There was no right of appeal to justices, under reg 22 of the Child Support (Collection & Enforcement) Regs 1992, for a father to challenge a deduction of earnings order under the Child Support Act 1991 on the ground the Secretary of State, in exercising his discretion under s 2, failed to take into account the welfare of the children likely to be affected. The remedy for any alleged breach of duty was an application for judicial review.

David Pannick QC, Mark Shaw (Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State; Nicholas Mostyn, Nicholas Lockett (Sparling Benham & Brough, Colchester) for the applicant.

Planning

Shimizu (UK) Ltd v Westminster CC; CA (Russell, Millett LJJ, Sir Ralph Gibson); 20 Dec 1994.

Section 8 of the Planning (Listed Building & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 predicated concepts of demolition and alteration which were mutually exclusive even to the extent of precluding the demolition of part from amounting to alteration of the whole.

Nigel Macleod QC (City Solicitor) for Westminster; David Holgate (Freshfields) for the respondent.

VAT

Customs & Excise Commrs v Colour Offset Ltd; QBD (May J); 2 Dec 1994.

Dairies and address books were standard-rated for VAT, not zero-rated "books or booklets" under the VAT Act 1983, Sch 5, grp 3, item 1 (now VAT Act 1994, Sch 8, grp 3, item 1).

Stephen Richards (Customs & Excise) for the Crown; John Tallon (Brown Cooper) for the taxpayer.

Customs & Excise Commrs v Le Refifi Ltd; CA (Balcombe, Millett LJJ, Sir Ralph Gibson); 7 Dec 1994.

Amounts of VAT due, notified on three pages of VAT form 191 for 24 accounting periods, constituted 24 separate assessments, not one global assessment, so if the earliest was out of time, its invalidity did not affect the rest.

Nigel Pleming QC (Customs & Excise) for the Crown; Edward Cohen (Tarlo Lyons) for the taxpayer.

Sentencing

R v Davies; CA (Cr Div) (Macpherson, Keene JJ); 6 Dec 1994.

Time spent in custody while on remand, prior to the imposition of a probation order, could not be taken into account when sentencing a defendant to a term of imprisonment for breaching the probation order. Counsel should ensure the sentencing tribunal was aware of that, so that due allowance could be made.

Roger Davey, who did not appear below (Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the appellant.

Tax

Bennett & ors v Inland Revenue Commrs; ChD (Lightman J); 21 Dec 1994.

A widow, the beneficiary of income under her husband's will, gave a written authority to the trustees to transfer to her sons each year any income surplus to her needs. Since it was proved the transferor had a settled intention of making regular gifts, two transfers of surplus income in the two years before her death were within the exemption provided by s 21(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984.

Robert Venables QC, Robert Grierson (Taylor-Winters, High Wycombe) for the taxpayers; Michael Furness (Inland Revenue) for the Crown.

Fawcett (Inspr of Taxes) v Special Commissioner & anr; ChD (Rattee J); 15 Dec 1994.

Auctioneers who received the proceeds of sale on behalf of farmers selling livestock were not obliged to provide information demanded by the Inland Revenue by notices issued under the Taxes Management Act 1970, s 13.

Christopher McCall QC (Inland Revenue) for the Crown; Janek Matthews, Julian Ghosh (Oglethorpe Sturton & Gillibrand, Lancaster) for the taxpayer.

Inland Revenue Commrs v Willoughby & anr; CA (Glidewell, Hobhouse, Morritt LJJ); 16 Dec 1994.

The anti-avoidance provisions of the Income & Corporation Taxes Act 1988, s 739 (transfer of assets abroad) did not apply to the transfer of funds between offshore investments if the transferor was not ordinarily resident in the UK at the time.

Alan Moses QC, Launcelot Henderson (Inland Revenue) for the Crown; David Goy QC, Philip Baker (Bailey Shaw & Gillett) for the taxpayers.

Trademark

Northern & Shell plc v Conde Nast; ChD (Jacob J); 9 Dec 1994.

A licensee of a registered trademark cannot sue an alleged infringer who has the registered proprietor's permission to use the mark.

Michael Fysh QC, Robert Deacon (Alexander Johnson) for the plaintiff; Geoffrey Hobbs QC, Michael Bloch, Emma Hims-worth (Stephens Innocent) for the defendants.