Law Report: Case summaries (CORRECTED)

CORRECTION (PUBLISHED 23 DECEMBER 1993) INCORPORATED INTO THIS ARTICLE

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

Children

Devon County Council v S and Y; FD (Thorpe J); 22 Nov 1993.

An application for leave to institute the wardship jurisdiction under s100(4) of the Children Act 1989 should not be construed restrictively. Therefore, in a case, where it was inappropriate for the local authority to institute care proceedings in respect of three children of the family and where the court was satisfied the particular children needed protection from external risk, the respondent, who was a family friend, a convicted Sch 1 offender, and had been assessed as a paedophile, the court would exercise its inherent jurisdiction and grant order preventing the respondent from having contact with the children, and the mother from allowing the children to have contact with him.

George Meredith (Council Solicitor) for the local authority; Cynthia Gifford (Slee Blackwell, Barnstable) for the respondent.

County courts

Restick v Crickmore; Nisbet v Granada Entertainment Ltd; Reed v Department of Employment; Warren v Hinchcliff; CA (Butler-Sloss, Stuart-Smith LJJ, Sir Tasker Watkins); 17 Nov 1993.

Where an action for personal injuries was brought in the High Court because, when the writ was issued, the claim was expected to exceed pounds 5,000, but the court is satisfied the proceedings are now required to be in the county court, the High Court has an unfettered discretion to order the transfer of the proceedings and is not, under s40 (1) of the County Courts Act 1984 as amended by s2(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 obliged to strike out, although it may do so if it is satisfied that the person bringing the proceedings knew or ought to have known of the requirement.

Michael Hosford-Tanner (Roger Green & Co, Basildon) for Restick; Michael Pooles (Budd Martin Burrett, Chelmsford) for Crickmore; Daniel Brennan QC and EA Gumbel (David Saunders, Ashford) for Nisbet; Dermot O'Brien QC and Richard Hayward (Argles & Court) for Granada; Kieran May (Philip Hamer & Co, Leeds) for Reed; Ian Burnett (Treasury Solicitor) for DOE; Kieran May (Philip Hamer & Co, Leeds) for Warren.

Assault

Blackburn and ors v Bowering and anor; CA (Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Leggatt, Roch LJJ); 26 Oct 1993.

A party was not liable under s14(1) of the County Courts Act 1984 for assaulting an officer of a court while in the execution of his duty, if at the time of the alleged assault, he honestly but mistakenly believed either the person was not an officer of the court or that such person was not acting in the execution of his duty.

Martin Steen (Rodney King, Bristol) for the appellant; Brian Watson (Trump & Partners, Bristol) for the respondents.

Costs

R v Mitchell and another; CA (Crim Div) (Leggatt LJ, Curtin, Mitchell JJ) 29 Nov 1993.

On a charge of conspiracy to supply drugs, where the defendants had been sentenced to 10 years imprisonment and confiscation orders had been made, it was wrong in principle to make orders for costs, since all the defendants' assets had been taken into consideration in connection with the confiscation orders.

Henry Grunwald; Nigel Lambert (Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendants.

Education

R v Essex CC, Ex p C; CA (Russell, Staughton, Steyn LJJ); 24 Nov 1993.

Since parental choice of a school for a child was subject, inter alia, under s76 of the Education Act 1944 to the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure, the local education authority was not under a duty to provide free transport for a child irrespective of the distance involved and irrespective of an equally suitable school nearer to the child's home.

Philip Engelman (Teacher Stern Selby) for the appellant; Richard McManus (Council Solicitor) for the council.

Evidence

Lonrho plc v Fayed and ors; CA (Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Leggatt, Roch LJJ); 26 Oct 1993.

Although public interest immunity attached to documents in the hands of the Inland Revenue relating to a taxpayer's tax affairs in the absence of consent to disclosure by the taxpayer, such immunity did not attach to such documents in the hands of the taxpayer and his agents.

Jonathan Sumption QC and Alastair Walton (Herbert Smith) for the appellants; Sydney Kentridge QC and Victor Lyon (Denton Hall) for the respondents.