House of Lords Journal 234 (Session 2000-01)

Previous Next Page 378 2000-01 Volume 234       Wednesday 16 May 2001 The following Lords of Appeal were present: Bingham of Cornhill, L. Clyde, L. Hobhouse of Woodborough, L. Nicholls of Birkenhead, L. Scott of Foscote, L. 1. C R Smith Glaziers (Dunfermline) Limited (Appellants) v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise (Respondents) (Scotland)—The appeal of C R Smith Glaziers (Dunfermline) Limited was presented and it was ordered that in accordance with Standing Order VI the statement and appendix thereto be lodged on or before 27th June next. 2. In re B (a minor) (2001) (FC)—The petition of F, the foster mother, praying for leave to appeal was presented and referred to the Appeal Committee. The petitioner’s certificate of public funding was lodged (lodged 16th May). 3. In re Lee (Petitioner) (Northern Ireland)—The petition of Peter Lee praying for leave to appeal was presented and referred to the Appeal Committee (lodged 12th March). 4. Lawrence (Respondent) v. Lesser (Appellant)—The petition of the appellant praying that the time for lodging the statement and appendix and setting down the cause for hearing might be extended to 27th June next (the agents for the respondent consenting thereto) was presented; and it was ordered as prayed. 5. Regina v. East Sussex County Council (Appellants) ex parte Reprotech (Pebsham) Limited (Respondents) and one other action—The petition of the appellants praying that the time for lodging the statement and appendix and setting down the cause for hearing might be extended to 27th June next (the agents for the respondents consenting thereto) was presented; and it was ordered as prayed. 6. Loftus and others (Respondents) v. Etridge (AP) (Appellant) and another—The petition of the appellant was presented praying that the appeal be withdrawn on the terms agreed between the parties (the agents for the respondents consenting thereto) and that the costs of the appellant be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Act 1988; and it was ordered as prayed. 7. Peskin and another (suing on their own behalf and on behalf of 355 retired members of the Royal Automobile Club) (Petitioners) v. Anderson and others (Respondents)—Upon application by the petitioners (the agents for the respondents consenting thereto), it was ordered that the petition be withdrawn and that there be no order as to costs. 8. Appeal Committee—The Second Report from the Appeal Committee was agreed to and the following Orders were made— Cossey and another v. Lonnkvist (FC) (Petitioner) and another and others (Respondents)—That leave to appeal be refused; that the costs of the petitioner be taxed in accordance with the Access to Justice Act 1999; and that the respondents be at liberty to apply for their costs in accordance with direction 5.1(c) and, if the application is granted, that the amount thereof be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments if not agreed between the parties. In re Hartley (Petitioner) (Northern Ireland)—That leave to appeal be refused; that the respondents be at liberty to apply for their costs in accordance with direction 5.1(d) and, if the application is granted, that the amount thereof be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments if not agreed between the parties. Hitch and others (Petitioners) v. Stone (Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes) (Respondent) and one other action—That leave to appeal be refused; that the respondent be at liberty to apply for his costs in accordance with direction 5.1(d) and, if the application is granted, that the amount thereof be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments if not agreed between the parties. Regina v. London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (Respondents) and others ex parte Burkett and another (FC) (Petitioners)—That the respondents be invited to lodge objections by 30th May next. Regina v. Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Respondent) ex parte Plymouth City Airport Limited (Petitioners)—That leave to appeal be refused; that the respondent be at liberty to apply for his costs in accordance with direction 5.1(d) and, if the application is granted, that the amount thereof be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments if not agreed between the parties. In re Stenbacka (Petitioner) (application for a writ of Habeas Corpus)—That leave to appeal be refused. Royal Bank of Scotland plc (Petitioners) v. Miller (Respondent)—That leave to appeal be refused; that the respondent be at liberty to apply for her costs in accordance with direction 5.1(d) and, if the application is granted, that the amount thereof be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments if not agreed between the parties. Armhouse Lee Limited (Respondents) v. Chappell (Petitioner) and others—That the petition be dismissed as inadmissible. Page 379 2000-01 Volume 234 Back to top 9. Barclays Bank plc (Respondents) v. Harris (FC) (executor of Beryl Iris Harris (deceased)) (Appellant))— 10. Midland Bank plc (Respondents) v. Wallace and another (AP) (Appellant)— 11. Royal Bank of Scotland (Respondents) v. Etridge (AP) (Appellant)— 12. National Westminster Bank plc (Respondents) v. Gill and another (AP) (Appellant)— 13. UCB Home Loans Corporation Limited (Respondents) v. Moore and another (AP) (Appellant)— (Conjoined Appeals)— 14. Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland (Respondents) v. Bennett and another (AP) (Appellant)— 15. Kenyon Brown (Respondent) v. Desmond Banks & Co (Appellants)— 16. Barclays Bank plc (Respondents) v. Coleman and another (FC) (Appellant)— The cause was further heard. Their Lordships adjourned at four o’clock till tomorrow, half past ten o’clock.