Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Apr-16-2008
LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. This appeal arises out of an application to quash a permit issued on 12 August 2003 by the Environment Agency (“the Agency”) to Rugby Ltd for the operation of a cement works in Lawford Road, Rugby. The chief grounds are that the Agency did not disclose enough information about the environmental impact of the plant to satisfy its statutory and common law duties of public consultation. Rugby Ltd has since been taken over by the Mexican multinational Cemex and is called Cemex UK Cement Ltd, but I shall for convenience refer to it as “the company". The PPC Regulations 2. Cement has been made at Rugby since the time of Dr Arnold. But the Lawford Road plant was built less than 10 years ago. It represents the latest technology in cement making. When it was built, the manufacture of cement required authorisation under Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Authorisation was granted in 1999 and the plant began commissioning in the following...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jul-30-2008
LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury. I agree with it, and for the reasons he gives I would allow the appeal and make the order that he proposes. 2. The exercise which is contemplated by para 4 of Schedule 1 to the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Order 1997 (1997 SI/1984), as amended by the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) (Amendment) Order 2001 (2001 SI/3561), leaves much to the judgment of the rent officer. But, as its rather complex formula indicates, the area within which that judgment is to be exercised is not unlimited. It follows that, if his decision is challenged, the rent officer must be in a position to show that he has conducted the exercise in the way that is required by the paragraph. 3. The principle of valuation which the rent officer is asked to apply requires him to make an assessment based on a comparison with the rents payable for dw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Nov-26-2008
LORD PHILLIPS OF WORTH MATRAVERS My Lords, Introduction 1. The facts of this case raise issues of public importance as to the ambit of section 11 of the Public Order Act 1986. It is unfortunate that both before the Court of Appeal and this House the appellant was content to found his case on one narrow issue that is fact specific and much less significant than the wider issues. Those wider issues were canvassed in argument, though Mr Pannick QC for the respondent made the point that he had not come prepared to deal with them. Your Lordships will on this appeal resolve the narrow issue. I propose however to make some provisional observations on the wider issues so that the effect of the decision in this case is not misconstrued. 2. The appellant is an environmental educator and performing artist who is a regular participant in the monthly Critical Mass Cycle Ride (“Critical Mass”). The nature of Critical Mass is central to both the narrow and the wider issues. It has been a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Nov-12-2008
LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 1. By the Treaty on Accession that was signed in Athens on 16 April 2003 an agreement was entered into for the accession on 1 May 2004 of 10 new member states to the European Union, including the Republic of Poland. The European Union (Accessions) Act 2003 made provision for the Accession Treaty to be implemented into domestic law. One of the issues that the Accession Treaty addressed in the case of the acceding member states other than Cyprus and Malta (“the A8 states”) was the freedom of movement for workers which is guaranteed by article 39 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (“article 39EC”). The accession of Cyprus and Malta, on account of their small size, was not seen as being likely to overload the labour markets of the 15 existing member states. But it was decided as an integral part of the Treaty to lay down conditions as to access to their labour markets by nationals of the A8 states. 2. Part 2 of Annex ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Mar-12-2008
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. In these proceedings the appellant, Animal Defenders International, seeks a declaration under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 that section 321(2) of the Communications Act 2003 is incompatible with article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights as given effect in this country by the 1998 Act. The section is said to be incompatible as imposing an unjustified restraint on the right to freedom of political expression. The Queen’s Bench Divisional Court (Auld LJ and Ouseley J) refused to make a declaration of incompatibility ([2006] EWHC 3069 (Admin), [2007] EMLR 158) but granted a leapfrog certificate under section 12(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1969 and the House granted the appellant leave to appeal. 2. The appellant is a non-profit company whose aims include the suppression, by lawful means, of all forms of cruelty to animals, the alleviation of suffering and the conservation and protection of animals and their envir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jul-30-2008
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. I have had the benefit of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Baroness Hale of Richmond. I am in complete agreement with it, and would, for the reasons which she gives, allow the Council’s appeal. LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE My Lords, 2. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Baroness Hale of Richmond and, for the reasons she gives, with which I am in full agreement, I too would allow this appeal. BARONESS HALE OF RICHMOND My Lords, 3. The issue before us is whether a local social services authority is obliged, under section 21(1)(a) of the National Assistance Act 1948, to arrange (and pay for) residential accommodation for a person subject to immigration control who is HIV positive but whose only needs, other than for a home and subsistence, are for medication prescribed by his doctor and a refrigerator in which to keep it. The answer to that issue turns on the meaning of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jan-30-2008
LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury. For the reasons he gives, with which I agree, I too would allow this appeal. LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE My Lords, 2. I have had the advantage of reading in advance the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury and am in full agreement with the reasons he has given for allowing this appeal. LORD RODGER My Lords, 3. I have had the advantage of considering in draft the speech to be delivered by my noble and learned friend, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury. I agree with it and, for the reasons which he gives, I too would allow the appeal. LORD WALKER OF GESTINGTHORPE My Lords, 4. I have had the advantage of considering in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury. I agree with it and, for the reasons which he gives, I too would allow the appeal. LORD NEUBERGER OF ABBOTSBURY My Lords, 5. The s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Mar-12-2008
LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Mance. For the reasons he gives, with which I agree, I too would allow this appeal. LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE My Lords, 2. I have had the advantage of reading in advance the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Mance. I agree with it and, for the reasons he gives, I too would allow this appeal. LORD WALKER OF GESTINGTHORPE My Lords, 3. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Mance. I agree with it, and for the reasons which Lord Mance gives I would allow this appeal. LORD MANCE Introduction 4. This appeal raises points of construction on a Lloyd’s accountants’ professional indemnity policy which are of some difficulty, though no general importance. They relate to the scope and existence of cover afforded to the appellant, a “not for profit” umbrella corporation based in Illinois called Grant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Feb-06-2008
LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speeches of my noble and learned friends, Lord Scott of Foscote and Baroness Hale of Richmond. I am grateful to Lord Scott for setting out the facts and the procedural history and to Baroness Hale for her explanation of the wider context in which the legislation that we are concerned with needs to be viewed. For the reasons Baroness Hale gives I would allow the appeal and make the order that she proposes. 2. The question is whether the phrase “the whole or a substantial part of any premises in which the flat is contained” in section 47(2)(b)(ii) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 enables the landlord, unconstrained by their existing state, to identify the premises by drawing his own line around the tenant’s flat in support of his counter-notice or whether it refers to the existing and objectively recognisable state of the premises. No direct assistance can...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Feb-06-2008
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. On 23 April 1997 in the Crown Court at Worcester each of the appellants was convicted by a jury of causing grievous bodily harm with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. For that offence each was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. The first appellant received a concurrent sentence for another offence and the second appellant received a consecutive sentence of 2 years’ for other offences, making a total sentence in his case of 14 years’. For the purposes of this appeal, referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, it is accepted that when the trial of the appellants began in April 1997, although leave to prefer voluntary bills had previously been given on two occasions, there was no signed indictment before the Crown Court. The evidence at the trial ended on Friday 18 April. On Monday 21 April 1997 the appellants were arraigned on an additional (but alternative) co...
Tag this Judgment!