Law reports: Case Summaries: 23 march 1998
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The following notes of judgments were prepared by the reporters of the All England Law Reports.
Aggravated trespass
Capon & ors v DPP; QBD (Div Ct)(Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ, Dyson J) 5 March 1998.
Where a police officer had a genuine belief that an obstruction of lawful activity would occur if suspected persons remained on land in question, his direction under s 69 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 was lawful even if no actual offence of aggravated trespass had been committed, since the prerequisite for a direction was a reasonable belief on the part of the officer, not the actual commission of the offence.
Kier Starmer (Legal Department, Liberty) for the applicants; Richard Sones (CPS, Newcastle upon Tyne) for the prosecution.
Landlord and tenant
Rainbow Estates Ltd v Tokenhold & anor; Ch D (Lawrence Collins QC sitting as a dputy High Court judge) 4 March 1998.
Although the court had power to grant an order for specific performance of a tenant's repairing covenant, not only was there a need for great caution in granting the remedy against a tenant, but it would also be a rare case in which it would be appropriate.
Mark Warwick (Philippsohn Crawfords Benvald) for the plaintiff; Helen Soffa (Turners) for the defendants.
VAT
Malik v Customs and Excise Commrs; QBD (Crown Office List) (Keene J) 10 March 1998.
Freshly cooked food delivered to customers in hot boxes was not within the zero-rating provisions for food in Sched 8, Group1, item 1 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994, which by note (3) excluded supplies "in the course of catering". Catering included hot food which had been heated. The cooking process, which necessarily involved heating, was within the definition of hot food if the food was delivered to the customer to be eaten while it was still hot.
Julian Ghosh (Tweedie & Prideaux) for Mrs Malik; Phillipa Whiplle (C&E Solicitor) for the Crown.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments