House of Lords Journal 239 (Session 2005-06)


Previous Next

Thursday 28th July 2005

The House met at half-past nine o’clock.

The following Lords Spiritual and Temporal were present:

Bingham of Cornhill, L.
Carswell, L.
Hale of Richmond, B.
Hoffman, L.
Nicholls of Birkenhead, L.
Southwell, Bp.
Steyn, L.
Walker of Gestingthorpe, L.

PRAYERS were read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell.

1.Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) ex parte Smith (FC) (Respondent) and one other action—It was moved by the Lord Bingham of Cornhill, That the 9th 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 11th February 2004 be affirmed and the appeal dismissed with costs; and that the costs of the respondent in this House be taxed in accordance with the Access to Justice Act 1999, the amount thereof to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments if not agreed between the parties. The respondent’s certificate of public funding was lodged. [2005] UKHL 51
2.Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) ex parte Dudson (FC) (Appellant) and one other action—It was moved by the Lord Bingham of Cornhill, That the 10th 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 11th February 2004 be affirmed and the appeal dismissed with costs; and that the amounts thereof, if any, to be paid by the appellant and to be paid out of the Community Legal Service Fund be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments in accordance with regulations made pursuant to section 11 of the Access to Justice Act 1999. [2005] UKHL 52

Page 203

2005-06

Volume 239      

3.Marks and Spencer plc (Appellants) v. Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Customs and Excise (Respondents)—It was moved by the Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, That the 11th Report from the Appellate Committee be agreed to; the motion was agreed to. It was ordered and adjudged that the issues raised in the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, 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 form of a question or questions to be formulated by the House; and that further consideration of the appeal be adjourned sine die. [2005] UKHL 53
4.Autologic Holdings plc and others (Respondents) v. Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Appellants)—
5.BNP Paribas UK Holdings Limited and others (Respondents) v. Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Appellants)—
6.The Future Network plc and others (Respondents) v. Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Appellants)—
7.Perkins Engines Company Limited and others (Respondents) v. Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Appellants)—
8.HJ Heinz Company Inc and others (Respondents) v. Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Appellants)—
9.British Telecommunications plc and others (Respondents) v. Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Appellants)

(Conjoined Appeals)—

It was moved by the Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, That the 12th Report from the Appellate Committee be agreed to; the motion was agreed to. It was ordered and adjudged that the six appeals be allowed; that the Orders of Mr Justice Park of 31st March 2004 and the Court of Appeal of 28th May 2004 be set aside and the six causes be remitted back to the High Court of Justice Chancery Division to give effect to the judgment of this House; and that the question of costs be adjourned in order that the parties may make written submissions within 14 days. [2005] UKHL 54

10.Regina v. Becouarn (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))—It was moved by the Lord Steyn, That the 13th 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 Criminal Division of 4th April 2003 be affirmed and the appeal dismissed; and that the first certified question be answered in the affirmative, qualifying it by deleting the word “always”. [2005] UKHL 55
11.R (on the application of Noble Organisation Limited) (Petitioners) v. Thanet District Council (Respondents)—The petition of the Noble Organisation Limited praying for leave to appeal was presented and referred to an Appeal Committee.
12.Leeds City Council (Respondents) v. Price and others and others (FC) (Appellants)—The petition of the First Secretary of State praying for leave to intervene in the said appeal was presented and referred to an Appeal Committee.
13.R v. Longworth (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))—The petition of the Secretary of State for the Home Department praying for leave to intervene in the said appeal was presented and referred to an Appeal Committee.
14.Henderson (Respondent) v. 3052775 Nova Scotia Limited (Appellants) (Scotland)—The appeal was set down for hearing and referred to an Appellate Committee (lodged 26th July).
15.Land Securities Group plc (Appellants) v. Scottish Ministers and others (Respondents) (Scotland)—The appeal was set down for hearing and referred to an Appellate Committee.
16.R (on the application of Corporation of London) (Respondents) v. Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and others (Appellants)—
17.R (on the application of Corporation of London) (Respondents) v. Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Appellant) and others—

(Conjoined Appeals)—

The appeals were set down for hearing and referred to an Appellate Committee.

18.Majrowski (Respondent) v. Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Trust (Appellants)—It was ordered that the appellants be allowed to prosecute the appeal without giving the usual security for costs as required by Standing Order.
19.In re Wellington (Petitioner) (application for a writ of Habeas Corpus)—The petitioner’s legal aid certificate was lodged.
20.Habib Bank Limited (Petitioners) v. Iqbal (Respondent)—The petitioner’s notice of funding was lodged.

Page 204

2005-06

Volume 239

Back to top

21.Appeal Committee—The following Orders were made pursuant to the 111th Report, Session 2003–04—

In re Wellington (Petitioner) (application for a writ of Habeas Corpus)—That the costs of the petitioner be taxed in accordance with the Access to Justice Act 1999.

22.Appeal Committee—The following Order was made pursuant to the 12th Report:

Kuwait Airways Corporation (Respondents) v. Iraqi Airways Company (Petitioners) (2005)—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.

23.Appeal Committee—The 24th Report was made; the Appeal Committee reported that they had met and had heard Counsel; the report was agreed to and the following Orders were made—

Ayliffe and others (Petitioners) v. Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)—That leave to appeal be given; and that the petition of appeal be lodged by 11th August.

Swain (Petitioner) v. Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)—That leave to appeal be given; and that the petition of appeal be lodged by 11th August.

24.Appeal Committee—The 25th Report from the Appeal Committee was agreed to and the following Order was made—

R (on the application of Laporte) (FC) (Original Petitioner and Cross-respondent) v. Chief Constable of Gloucestershire (Original Respondent and Cross-petitioner)—That leave to cross-appeal be given; and that the petition of cross-appeal be lodged by 11th August.

25.Appeal Committee—The 26th Report from the Appeal Committee was agreed to and the following Orders were made—

M (FC) (Petitioner) v. Immigration Appeal Tribunal (Respondents) and another (Respondent)—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 second 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.

G (FC) (Petitioner) v. Immigration Appeal Tribunal (Respondents) and another (Respondent)—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 second 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.

Murphy (Petitioner) v. Slough Borough Council and others (Respondents)—That leave to appeal be refused.

26.Appeal Committee—The 27th Report from the Appeal Committee was agreed to and the following Orders were made—

R v. Richards (Petitioner)—That the respondent be invited to lodge objections by 11th August.

R v. Roy (Petitioner) (Northern Ireland)—That the petition be dismissed as inadmissible.

O’Brien and others (FC) (Petitioners) v. Independent Assessor (Respondent)—That leave to appeal be given; and that the petition of appeal be lodged by 11th August.

27.Appeal Committee—The 28th Report from the Appeal Committee was agreed to and the following Orders were made—

OBG Limited and others (Petitioners) v. Allan and others (Respondents)—That leave to appeal be given; and that the petition of appeal be lodged by 11th August.

Sempra Metals Limited (formerly Metallgesellschaft Limited) (Respondents) v. Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Inland Revenue and another (Petitioners)—That leave to appeal be given; and that the petition of appeal be lodged by 11th August.

London Borough of Brent (Respondents) v. Banjo (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 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.

28.Appeal Committee—The 29th Report from the Appeal Committee was agreed to and the following Orders were made—

R (on the application of O’Connell) v. Fareham Magistrates’ Court (Respondents)—That the petition be dismissed as inadmissible.

Kola (FC) and another (FC) (Petitioners) v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Respondent)—That the respondent be invited to lodge objections by 11th August.

Page 205

2005-06

Volume 239

Back to top

29.Appeal Committee—The 30th Report from the Appeal Committee was agreed to and the following Orders were made—

R v. May (Petitioner)—That leave to appeal be given; and that the petition of appeal be lodged by 11th August.

Will Gannon & Smith Limited (Petitioners) v. Abbott and another (Respondents)—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.

Ntiamoah-Kumah (Petitioners) v. Osbournes (a firm) (Respondents)—That the petition be dismissed as inadmissible.

Durant (Petitioner) v. Financial Services Authority (Respondents)—That the petition be referred for hearing.

30.Appeal Committee—The 31st Report from the Appeal Committee was agreed to and the following Order was made—

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (Petitioners) v. Begum (FC) (Respondent)—That leave to appeal be given; and that the petition of appeal be lodged by 11th August.

31.Appeal Committee—The 32nd Report from the Appeal Committee was agreed to and the following Orders were made—

Oxfordshire County Council (Respondents) v. Oxford City Council (Respondents) and another (Petitioner) (2005)—That leave to appeal be given; and that the petition of appeal be lodged by 11th August.

Oxfordshire County Council (Respondents) v. Oxford City Council (Petitioners) and another (Respondent) (2005)—That leave to appeal be given; and that the petition of appeal be lodged by 11th August.

Oxfordshire County Council (Petitioners) v. Oxford City Council and another (Respondents) (2005)—That leave to appeal be given; and that the petition of appeal be lodged by 11th August.

32.Appeal Committee—The 33rd Report from the Appeal Committee was agreed to and the following Order was made—

Markem Corporation and others (Petitioners) v. Zipher Limited (Respondents) and one other action—That the respondents be invited to lodge objections by 11th August.

33.Appeal Committee—The 34th Report from the Appeal Committee was agreed to and the following Orders were made—

Akunyili (Applicant) v. Hodge Jones & Allen (Respondents)—That permission to appeal be refused because the application is inadmissible.

R (on the application of N) (FC) (Petitioner) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)—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.

Mayne Pharma Pty Limited and others (Petitioners) v. Pharmacia Italia SpA (Respondents)—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.

Thornhill (trustee of Clive W Atherton) (Respondent) v. Atherton (Petitioner) and others (Respondents)—That leave to appeal be refused; that the first 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.

Fourie (Petitioner) v. Le Roux and others (Respondents)—That the respondents be invited to lodge objections by 11th August.

Bailey and others (Respondents) v. Home Office (Petitioners)—That leave to appeal be given; and that the petition of appeal be lodged by 11th August.