House of Lords Journal 241 (Session 2007-08)


Previous Next

Wednesday 30 July 2008

The House met at 9.45am.

The following Lords Spiritual and Temporal were present:

Bingham of Cornhill, L.
Brown of Eaton-under-
Heywood, L.
Ely, Bp.
Hale of Richmond, B.
Hope of Craighead, L.
Mance, L.
Neuberger of Abbotsbury, L.
Rodger of Earlsferry, L.
Scott of Foscote, L.
Walker of Gestingthorpe, L.
    

Prayers were read by the Lord Bishop of Ely.

Judicial Business

1Chief Constable of the Hertfordshire Police (Original Appellant and Cross-respondent) v Van Colle (administrator of the estate of GC (deceased)) and another (Original Respondents and Cross-appellant)

2Smith (FC) (Respondent) v Chief Constable of Sussex Police (Appellant)

It was moved by Lord Bingham of Cornhill that the 60th Report from the Appellate Committee be agreed to; the motion was agreed to. It was ordered and adjudged that in the appeal of Van Colle, the appeal be allowed; that the Order of Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal of 23 May 2007 and also the Order of Mrs Justice Cox in the Queen’s Bench Division of Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice of 10 March 2006 be set aside and judgment entered for the Chief Constable of the Hertfordshire Police; and that the question of costs be adjourned in order that the parties (other than the interveners) may make written submissions within 14 days:

And that in the appeal of Smith, the appeal be allowed; that the Order of Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal of 5 February 2008 be set aside and the Order of His Honour Judge Simpkiss in the Brighton County Court of 31 January 2007 restored; that the question of costs be adjourned in order that the parties (other than the intervener) may make written submissions within 14 days; and that the

Page 803            2007-08      Volume 241      

costs of the respondent in this House be taxed in accordance with the Access to Justice Act 1999. [2008] UKHL 50

3Caldarelli (Appellant) v Court of Naples (Respondents) (Criminal Appeal from Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice) It was moved by Lord Bingham of Cornhill that the 61st Report from the Appellate Committee be agreed to; the motion was agreed to. It was ordered and adjudged that the Order of the Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division of Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice of 12 July 2007 be affirmed and the appeal dismissed; that the question certified by the Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division of Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice on that day be answered in accordance with the opinions expressed in this House; and that the question of costs be adjourned in order that the parties may make written submissions within 14 days. [2008] UKHL 51

4R (on the application of M) (FC) (Respondent) v Slough Borough Council (Appellants) It was moved by Lord Bingham of Cornhill that the 62nd Report from the Appellate Committee be agreed to; the motion was agreed to. It was ordered and adjudged that the appeal be allowed; that the Order of Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal of 25 May 2006, except the declaration in paragraph 2 (about the application of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to the respondent), and also the Order of Mr Justice Collins in the Administrative Court of the Queen’s Bench Division of Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice of 27 April 2004 (except for the provision that ordered that the respondent claimant be referred to as “M”) be set aside; that the question of costs be adjourned in order that the parties may make written submissions within 14 days; and that the costs of the respondent in this House be taxed in accordance with the Access to Justice Act 1999. [2008] UKHL 52

5R (on the application of Baiai and others) (Respondents) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) and one other action (formerly R (on the application of Trzcinska and others) (Respondents) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) and one other action) It was moved by Lord Bingham of Cornhill that the 63rd Report from the Appellate Committee be agreed to; the motion was agreed to. It was ordered and adjudged that the Order of Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal of 23 May 2007 be affirmed and the appeal dismissed; that for paragraph (1) of the Order of Mr Justice Silber in the Administrative Court of the Queen’s Bench Division of Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice of 10 April 2006 there be substituted “(1) Pursuant to section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998, it is declared that section 19(1) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 (“the 2004 Act”) is incompatible with Article 14 read with Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights in that the effect of this provision is unjustifiably to discriminate on the grounds of religion”; that paragraphs (2) and (3) of the said Order of Mr Justice Silber do stand; and that the question of costs be adjourned in order that the parties (other than the interveners) may make written submissions within 14 days. [2008] UKHL 53

6Maco Door and Window Hardware (UK) Limited (Respondents) v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Appellants) It was moved by Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe on behalf of Lord Hoffmann that the 54th Report from the Appellate Committee be agreed to; the motion was agreed to. It was ordered and adjudged that the appeal be allowed; that the Order of Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal of 19 June 2007 be set aside and the Order of Mr Justice Patten in the Chancery Division of Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice of 6 July 2006 restored; and that the question of costs be adjourned in order that the parties may make written submissions within 14 days. [2008] UKHL 54

7Yeoman’s Row Management Limited (Appellants) and another v Cobbe (Respondent) It was moved by Lord Scott of Foscote on behalf of Lord Hoffmann that the 55th Report from the Appellate Committee be agreed to; the motion was agreed to. It was ordered and adjudged that the appeal be allowed; that the Order of Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal of 24 October 2006 and also the Order of 25 February 2005 (as varied) of Mr Justice Etherton in the Chancery Division of Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice be set aside; that for those orders there be substituted the following orders—

(1) if the respondent instructs Paul Davies and Partners, architects, to permit the use by the appellant, or, at its direction, any other person, of the plans drawn up by that firm and in respect

Page 804            2007-08      Volume 241      Back to top

of which planning permission in respect of the appellant’s property was granted on 17 March 2004 and confirmed on 5 April 2004, for the payment by the appellant to the respondent of a quantum meruit for his services in obtaining the said planning permission, such quantum meruit to include the repayment to him of the expenses reasonably incurred by him in making and prosecuting the planning application, with interest thereon at the judgment rate from 18 March 2004 until payment;

(2) for the amount of the quantum meruit (if not agreed) to be assessed in chambers in the Chancery Division of Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice with liberty to either party to apply for directions regarding the assessment;

(3) subject to (4) below, for the repayment by the respondent to the appellant of the £2 million paid to him in March 2007, with interest thereon at the rate referred to in (1) above from the date of payment of that sum to the respondent until repayment;

(4) for the amount due to the respondent under the quantum meruit to be set-off against the £2 million repayable by the respondent under (3) above, and so that, pending the assessment of the amount of the quantum meruit or agreement by the parties as to the amount, the respondent is to be at liberty to retain out of the £2 million a sum of £150,000;

And that the question of costs be adjourned in order that the parties may make written submissions within 14 days as to how the costs in the courts below (including the costs of the abortive inquiry into the value of the property before and after the grant of planning permission) and the costs of the appeal to this House should be borne, any costs of the assessment of the quantum meruit being costs in the assessment. [2008] UKHL 55

8Gallagher (Valuation Officer) (Respondent) v Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Appellants) It was moved by Lord Hope of Craighead on behalf of Lord Hoffmann that the 66th Report from the Appellate Committee be agreed to; the motion was agreed to. It was ordered and adjudged that the Order of Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal of 24 November 2006 be affirmed and the appeal dismissed; and that the question of costs be adjourned in order that the parties (other than the intervener) may make written submissions within 14 days. [2008] UKHL 56

9Doherty (FC) (Appellant) and others v Birmingham City Council (Respondents) It was moved by Lord Hope of Craighead that the 67th Report from the Appellate Committee be agreed to; the motion was agreed to. It was ordered and adjudged that the appeal be allowed; that the Order of Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal of 21 December 2006 and also the Order of 20 December 2004 of His Honour Judge McKenna (sitting as a deputy High Court Judge) in the Queen’s Bench Division of Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice be set aside; that the case be remitted to a Judge of the Queen’s Bench Division of Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice for him i) to review the reasons given by the respondents for serving a notice to quit to obtain vacant possession of the plots that the appellant and his family occupy, and ii) to determine whether the decision to terminate the appellant’s licence on the grounds stated in the particulars of claim, and having regard to the length of time the appellant and his family have resided on the site, was reasonable; that the respondents do pay, or cause to be paid, to the appellants their costs in the Court of Appeal and this House and their costs of the determination of the issue under CPR Part 24 in the Birmingham County Court and the Queen’s Bench Division of Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice, the amount of such costs in the courts below to be assessed by a Costs Judge if not agreed between the parties and the amount in this House to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments if not agreed between the parties; and that the costs of the appellants in this House be taxed in accordance with the Access to Justice Act 1999. [2008] UKHL 57

10R (on the application of Heffernan) (FC) (Appellant) v The Rent Service (Respondents) It was moved by Lord Hope of Craighead that the 68th Report from the Appellate Committee be agreed to; the motion was agreed to. It was ordered and adjudged that the appeal be allowed; that the Order of Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal of 13 June 2007 be set aside and the Order of His Honour Judge Gilbart QC (sitting as a deputy High Court Judge) in the Administrative Court of the Queen’s Bench Division of Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice of 10 October 2006 restored; that the respondents do pay, or cause to be paid, to the appellant his costs in the Court of Appeal and this

Page 805            2007-08      Volume 241      Back to top

House, the amount of such costs in the Court of Appeal to be assessed by a Costs Judge if not agreed between the parties and the amount in this House to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments if not agreed between the parties; and that the costs of the appellant in this House be taxed in accordance with the Access to Justice Act 1999. [2008] UKHL 58

11McKinnon (Appellant) v Government of the United States of America (Respondents) and another It was moved by Lord Scott of Foscote that the 69th Report from the Appellate Committee be agreed to; the motion was agreed to. It was ordered and adjudged that the Order of the Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division of Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice of 3 April 2007 be affirmed and the appeal dismissed; that the first question certified by the Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division of Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice on 25 May 2007 be answered in accordance with the opinions expressed in this House; and that the question of costs be adjourned in order that the parties (other than the intervener) may make written submissions within 14 days. [2008] UKHL 59

12R (on the application of Corner House Research and others) (Respondents) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office (Appellant) (Criminal Appeal from Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice) It was moved by Lord Bingham of Cornhill that the 70th Report from the Appellate Committee be agreed to; the motion was agreed to. It was ordered and adjudged that the appeal be allowed; that paragraph 1 of the Order of the Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division of Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice of 6 May 2008 be set aside; that the questions certified by the Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice on that day be answered in accordance with the opinions expressed in this House; and that that there be no further order for costs. [2008] UKHL 60

13In re Doherty (Original Respondent and Cross-appellant) (Northern Ireland) Further to the Order of the House of Wednesday 11 June 2008 (43rd Report, Session 2007-08; [2008] UKHL 33) it was ordered that the original respondent and cross-appellant do pay or cause to be paid to the original appellants and cross-respondents their costs in this House and in the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland, such order not to be enforced without further order of the Court; and that the original respondent and cross-appellant’s costs be taxed in accordance with Schedule 2 to the Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981.

14Smith (Appellant) v Northamptonshire County Council (Respondents) (England) The appeal of Jean Margaret Smith was presented and it was ordered that in accordance with Standing Order VI the statement and appendix thereto be lodged on or before 6 October (lodged 23 July).

15Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Respondents) v Weight Watchers (UK) Limited (Petitioners) The petition of Weight Watchers (UK) Limited praying for leave to appeal was presented and referred to an Appeal Committee (lodged 23 July).

16In re F (children) (2008) (First petition) The petition of the mother praying for leave to appeal was presented and referred to an Appeal Committee.

17In re F (children) (2008) (Second petition) The petition of the children praying for leave to appeal was presented and referred to an Appeal Committee.

18In re C (AP) and another (AP) (Appellants) (Northern Ireland)

19In re McE (Appellant) (Northern Ireland)

20In re M (Appellant) (Northern Ireland)

The petition of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission praying for leave to intervene in the said appeals was presented and referred to an Appeal Committee.

21Earl Cadogan (Appellant) v Pitts and another (Respondents) and one other action The appeal was set down for hearing and referred to an Appellate Committee.

Page 806            2007-08      Volume 241      Back to top

22RB (Algeria) (FC) and another (Appellants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) 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 3 September (lodged 23 July).

23Birmingham City Council (Appellants) v Ali (FC) and others (FC) (Respondents) It was ordered that the appellants be allowed to prosecute the appeal without giving the usual security for costs as required by Standing Order.

24Savage (Respondent) v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (Appellants) Upon application by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, it was ordered that they be given leave to withdraw their intervention.

25Appeal Committee The 99th Report from the Appeal Committee was agreed to and the following Orders were made:

Allen (Petitioner) v Matthews (Respondent) That leave to appeal be refused; that the executors of the respondent’s estate 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.

McConkey and another (Petitioners) v The Simon Community (Respondents) (Northern Ireland) That leave to appeal be given; and that the petition of appeal be lodged by 13 August.

R v Briggs-Price (Petitioner) That leave to appeal be given; and that the petition of appeal be lodged by 13 August.

Vicario (Petitioner) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (Respondent) 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 Waide (AP) (Petitioner) (Northern Ireland) That leave to appeal be refused; that the costs of the petitioner be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981; 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.

Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) v Boyle (Petitioner) That leave to appeal be refused.

26Appeal Committee The 100th Report from the Appeal Committee was agreed to and the following Orders were made:

Honeygan-Green (Respondent) v London Borough of Islington (Petitioners) That leave to appeal be given; and that the petition of appeal be lodged by 13 August.

Generics (UK) Limited and others (Petitioners) v H Lundbeck A/S (Respondents) That leave to appeal be given; and that the petition of appeal be lodged by 13 August.

Curistan (Petitioner) v Times Newspapers Limited (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.

Satyam Computer Services Limited (Petitioners) v Upaid Systems Limited (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.

Kuzel (Petitioner) v Roche Products Limited (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.

Page 807            2007-08      Volume 241      Back to top

27Appeal Committee The 101st Report from the Appeal Committee was agreed to and the following Orders were made:

Leonard and another (Petitioners) v Byrt and others (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.

Consolidated Contractors International Company SAL and others (Petitioners) v Masri (Respondent) That, upon the respondent’s undertaking, in the event that Consolidated Contractors International Company’s appeal against the Receivership Order is successful, that he will consent to any application by the petitioners for payment out of Court of the sum referred to in paragraph 1 of this Order and, further, that he will not apply for a freezing order or any other relief in respect of the sum standing in Court (or, as the case may be, in the joint names of the parties’ respective solicitors) or any part of that sum—

1)The petitioners shall, on or before 4 o’clock pm on Friday 15 August 2008 pay into Court (or into the joint names of the parties’ respective solicitors, if the parties so agree) the outstanding judgment sum in this matter in the amount of US$63,365,957.40. Provided, however, that

a)nothing in this order shall prevent Mr. Masri from taking any steps he may be advised to take to enforce the judgments of the English Court against either petitioner in any country of the world (other than by seeking payment out of the aforesaid sum pending the conclusion of this appeal); and

b)in the event that Mr. Masri successfully enforces his judgment against either petitioner and obtains a recovery as a result, the petitioners shall have liberty to apply to the Commercial Court to determine the amount which should remain in Court pursuant to this paragraph of this order.

2)The petitioners shall, within fourteen days of this Order, pay to the Respondent the sum of £21,000 referred to in paragraph 17 of the order of Flaux J dated 19 March 2008. The petitioners shall comply with any further order for the payment of, or on account of, costs or interest on costs which may be made in these proceedings, as and when they fall due.

3)The petitioners shall, within fourteen days of this Order, pay into Court the sum of £25,000 by way of security for the Respondent’s costs of the appeal. The respondent has liberty to apply to increase this amount in the event that a reference is made to the European Court of Justice in this appeal.

4)Unless the petitioners comply with the orders at paragraph 1-3 hereof, the appeal shall stand dismissed without further order; and that leave to appeal is granted on the above terms.

Chartbrook Limited (Respondents) v Persimmon Homes Limited and others (Petitioners) and another (Respondent) That leave to appeal be given; and that the petition of appeal be lodged by 13 August.

28Appeal Committee The 102nd Report from the Appeal Committee was agreed to and the following Orders were made:

In re C (AP) and another (AP) (Appellants) (Northern Ireland)

In re McE (Appellant) (Northern Ireland)

In re M (Appellant) (Northern Ireland)

That the petition of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission that they might be heard or otherwise intervene in the said appeals be allowed to the extent that they may initially lodge written submissions only.

29Appeal Committee The 103rd Report from the Appeal Committee was agreed to and the following Order was made:

Porter (FC) (Petitioner) v Shepherds Bush Housing Association (Respondents) That leave to appeal be given; and that the petition of appeal be lodged by 13 August.

Page 808            2007-08      Volume 241      Back to top

30Appeal Committee The 104th Report from the Appeal Committee was agreed to and the following Orders were made:

In re F (children) (2008) (First petition) 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 F (children) (2008) (Second petition) 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.