HOUSE OF LORDS
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
Die Mercurii 4° Aprilis 2001
The House met at two o’clock.
PRAYERS were read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.
Judicial Business
1. Amoco (UK) Exploration Company (a company incorporated in Delaware, USA) and others (Appellants) v. Teesside Gas Transportation Limited (Respondents)
2. Amoco (UK) Exploration Company (a company incorporated in Delaware, USA) and others (Appellants) v. Imperial Chemical Industries plc and others (Respondents)
It was moved by the Lord Bingham of Cornhill, That the 26th Report from the Appellate Committee be agreed to; the motion was agreed to. It was ordered and adjudged that the Orders of the Court of Appeal of 30th July 1999 be set aside and that the Orders of Mr Justice Langley of 26th June, 10th July 1997 and 21st January 1998 be restored; and that the respondents do pay to the appellants their costs in the Court of Appeal and two-thirds of their costs before this House, the amount of such last-mentioned costs to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments if not agreed between the parties. [2001] UKHL 18
3. Eastbourne Town Radio Cars Association (Appellants) v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise (Respondents)—It was moved by the Lord Slynn of Hadley, That the 27th Report from the Appellate Committee be agreed to; the motion was agreed to. It was ordered and adjudged that the Order of the Court of Appeal of 7th May 1998 be affirmed and the appeal dismissed with costs, the amount thereof to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments if not agreed between the parties. [2001] UKHL 19
4. International Power plc (Appellants) v. Healy and others (Respondents) (formerly National Power plc (Appellants) v. Feldon and others (Respondents))—
5. National Grid Company plc (Appellants) v. Mayes and others (Respondents)—
It was moved by the Lord Slynn of Hadley, That the 28th Report from the Appellate Committee be agreed to; the motion was agreed to. It was ordered and adjudged that the Orders of the Court of Appeal of 26th May 1999 and, in the first appeal, paragraph 2(b) of the Order of Mr Justice Robert Walker of 10th June 1997 be set aside and that the Orders as to costs of Mr Justice Robert Walker of 10th June 1997 be restored; that it be declared that “All the arrangements made by the appellants were valid and that the Principal Employer can determine that amounts payable under clause 13(1)(e) are to be paid by instalments.”; and that the appellants do pay to the respondents their costs in the Court of Appeal and before this House in accordance with the Orders of the Court of Appeal of 26th May 1999, the amount of such last-mentioned costs to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments if not agreed between the parties. [2001] UKHL 20
6. Scandecor Development AB (Appellants) v. Scandecor Marketing AB and others (Respondents) and one other action—It was moved by the Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, That the 29th Report from the Appellate Committee be agreed to; the motion was agreed to. It was ordered that the following questions be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 of the Treaty establishing the European Community: “In the context of the opinions expressed in this House: 1. Is a trade mark to be regarded as liable to mislead the public within the meaning of article 12(2)(b) of Council Directive No 89/104/EC of the 21st day of December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (the “Trade Marks Directive”) if the origin of the goods denoted by the mark is a bare exclusive licensee? 2. What are the criteria to be applied in determining whether a trading relationship comprises a single undertaking for the purposes of the Trade Marks Directive? 3. Is a company a person for the purpose of article 6(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Directive? 4. Article 12 of the Trade Marks Directive provides that a trade mark shall be “liable” to revocation in specified circumstances. When those circumstances exist, must the court revoke the trade mark, or does the court retain any discretion as to whether to revoke?”; and that further consideration of the appeal be adjourned sine die. [2001] UKHL 21
7. Regina v. East Sussex County Council (Appellants) ex parte Reprotech (Pebsham) Limited (Respondents) and one other action (England)—The appeal of East Sussex County Council was presented and it was ordered that in accordance with Standing Order VI the statement and appendix thereto be lodged on or before 16th May next.
8. Dubai Aluminium Company Limited v. Salaam (Respondent) and others (Original Appellants and Cross-respondents) and others and another (Original Respondent and Cross-appellants) (England)—The cross-appeal of Mahdi Mohamed Al Tajir was presented and it was ordered that in accordance with Standing Order VI the statement and appendix thereto be lodged on or before 16th May next.
9. C (a minor) (Petitioner) v. Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (Respondents)—The petition of C praying for an extension of time within which the petition may be lodged and for leave to appeal in accordance with the Administration of Justice Act 1960, was presented and referred to an Appeal Committee.
10. Appeal Committee—The following Order was made pursuant to the 42nd Report:
Regina v. Benjafield (Petitioner)—That leave to appeal be given, and that the petition of appeal be lodged by 18th April next.
11. Appeal Committee—The 43rd Report from the Appeal Committee was agreed to and the following Orders were made—
Coflexip SA and others (Respondents) v. Stolt Offshore MS Limited (previously Stolt Comex Seaway MS Limited) and others (Petitioners)—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.
Hunt (as trustee in bankruptcy of James Alan Peasegood) (Respondent) v. Peasegood (FC) (Petitioner)—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 respondent be at liberty to apply for his 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.
Bybrook Barn Centre Limited and others (Respondents) v. Kent County Council (Petitioners)—That the respondents be invited to lodge objections by 18th April next.
A E Beckett & Sons (Lyndons) Limited and others (Respondents) v. Midlands Electricity plc (Petitioners)—That the respondents be invited to lodge objections by 18th April next.
Ashworth Security Hospital (Respondents) v. MGN Limited (Petitioners)—That the respondents be invited to lodge objections by 18th April next.
Abouzaid (Respondent) v. Mothercare UK 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 B (a minor) (Respondent)—That the respondent be invited to lodge objections by 18th April next.
The House was adjourned during pleasure.
The House was resumed.
Papers
12. Command Papers—The following papers were presented to the House by command of Her Majesty and ordered to lie on the Table:
1. Social Security—Agreement between the United Kingdom and Japan on Social Security; (4744)
2. Defence—Agreement between the United Kingdom and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) on the Privileges and Immunities of the OPCW; (5099)
3. Human Rights—Response of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee: Report on Human Rights 2000; (5129)
4. Security Services—Single Intelligence Vote: Resource Accounts 1999-2000. (5059)
13. Negative Instruments—The following instruments were laid before the House and ordered to lie on the Table:
1. Non-Domestic Rating (Rural Settlements) (England) (Amendment) Order 2001, laid under the Local Government Finance Act 1988; (1346)
2. Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Decisions and Appeals) (Transitional and Savings) Regulations 2001, laid under the Pensions Act 1995; (1264)
3. Bretton Hall Higher Education Corporation (Dissolution) Order 2001, laid under the Education Reform Act 1988; (1340)
4. Education (Adjudicators Inquiry Procedure etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2001, laid under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998; (1339)
5. (i) Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Export of Vehicles) (Disinfection of Tyres) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2001— (1352)
(ii) Financial Markets and Insolvency (Settlement Finality) (Revocation) Regulations 2001— (1349)
laid under the European Communities Act 1972;
6. (i) Social Security (Incapacity Benefit) Amendment Regulations 2001— (1305)
(ii) Tax Credits (Miscellaneous Amendments No. 5) Regulations 2001— (1351)
laid under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992;
7. Tax Credits (Miscellaneous Amendments No. 5) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2001, laid under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992. (1350)
14. Papers not subject to parliamentary proceedings—The following papers were laid before the House and ordered to lie on the Table:
1. Suffolk (Coroners’ Districts) Order 2001, laid under the Coroners Act 1988; (1220)
2. Account for 1999-2000 of the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting, laid under the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1997.
Select Committee Reports
15. Delegated Powers and Deregulation—The following report from the Select Committee was made and ordered to be printed:
18th Report, on the Elections Bill. (HL Paper 65)
16. Human Rights—It was ordered that the evidence taken by the Joint Committee on 14th, 19th and 26th March be printed. (HL Paper 66-i, ii and iii)
Public Business
17. Business of the House—It was moved by the Baroness Jay of Paddington that the debate on the motion in the name of the Lord Jopling set down for today shall be limited to 5 hours; after debate, the motion was agreed to.
18. Health and Social Care Bill—It was moved by the Lord Burlison, on behalf of the Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 9
Schedule 1
Clauses 10 to 37
Schedule 2
Clauses 38 to 48
Schedule 3
Clauses 49 to 52 |
Clause 70
Clauses 53 to 56
Schedule 4
Clauses 57 to 69
Clauses 71 to 77
Schedules 5 and 6; |
the motion was agreed to.
19. Foot-and-mouth disease (5-hour debate)—It was moved by the Lord Jopling that there be laid before the House papers relating to the further developments in the countryside since the House debated the foot-and-mouth epidemic on 13th March; after debate, the motion was (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
The House was adjourned at fourteen minutes past eight o’clock
till tomorrow, three o’clock.
MICHAEL DAVIES
Cler: Parliamentor:
CORRECTION
In division No. 2 on the Hunting Bill on Monday 26th March, L. Lea of Crondall should not have been recorded as voting Not-Content. | 
