Court : House of Lords
LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. The chief question is whether a letter containing an acknowledgement of a debt for the purposes of section 29(5) of the Limitation Act 1980 is inadmissible on the ground that the letter formed part of a negotiation with a view to the creditor giving the debtor time to pay or accepting a lesser amount. In common with all of your Lordships, I consider that the letter was admissible. But there is some difference of opinion over the reasons and I must therefore state my own. There is also a subsidiary question as to whether the letters contained acknowledgements within the meaning of the Act. They are set out in the speech to be delivered by my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and I agree with him and my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead that references in the letter of 26 September 2001 to an "outstanding balance" and in the letter of 4 October 2001 to an "outstanding amount" are plain acknowledgements of the existence of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD PHILLIPS OF WORTH MATRAVERS My Lords, Introduction 1. On 6 February 2006 a solicitor called Manmohan Sandhu appeared before the Antrim Magistrates’ Court charged with incitement to murder, and four counts of doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of justice. The court was told that the case against Mr Sandhu was based on covert electronic surveillance carried out by the police of conversations between himself and clients who were purporting to consult him in the serious crime suite at Antrim Police Station. The fact that the case against Mr Sandhu was based upon such evidence received considerable media coverage and comment. It also led to requests being made of the police on behalf of each of the appellants for assurances that no such monitoring was taking place in respect of consultations that they were about to have with their lawyers or, in the case of M, his consultant psychiatrist. The police declined to give such assurances. 2. My noble and learned fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. Before the House are an appeal and a cross-appeal. Both raise questions as to the procedure adopted in revoking a declaration previously made in favour of Mr McClean as a life-sentence prisoner under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. They are important questions, bearing on the freedom of the prisoner and the safety of the community in Northern Ireland. The legislation 2. The Belfast (or Good Friday) Agreement reached at multi-party talks on Northern Ireland and signed on 10 April 1998 (Cm 3883) had as its political objective to break the cycle of political and sectarian violence which had disfigured the life of the province over a number of years. To that end the Governments of the United Kingdom and Ireland agreed, among other things, to put in place mechanisms for an accelerated programme for the release of prisoners convicted of offences scheduled under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts 1973, 1978, 1991 or 1996 as, very ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD My Lords, 1. Compulsory purchase of property is an essential tool in a modern democratic society. It facilitates planned and orderly development. Hand in hand with the power to acquire land without the owner's consent is an obligation to pay full and fair compensation. That is axiomatic: Director of Buildings and Lands v Shun Fung Ironworks Ltd [1995] 2 AC 111, 125. 2. Unhappily the law in this country on this important subject is fraught with complexity and obscurity. To understand the present state of the law it is necessary to go back 150 years to the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. From there a path must be traced, not always easily, through piecemeal development of the law by judicial exposition and statutory provision. Some of the more recent statutory provisions defy ready comprehension. Difficulties and uncertainties abound. One of the most intractable problems concerns the 'Pointe Gourde principle' or, as it is sometimes known, the 'no scheme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
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!Court : House of Lords
LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. Chapter IA of Part XV of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 contains anti-avoidance provisions intended in principle to prevent people from reducing their tax liabilities by settlements, gifts or similar arrangements which transfer income or income-producing assets to their minor children or under which they or their spouses retained an interest. These provisions go back many years. 2. The question in this appeal is whether they apply to the arrangements made by Mr and Mrs Jones to distribute the income of a company through which Mr Jones, with back-office support from Mrs Jones, traded as a computer consultant. When Mr Jones was made redundant in 1992, he decided to go freelance. He and his wife acquired a shelf company called Arctic Systems Ltd; the formation agents sold them the two issued 1 shares for 1 each and Mr Jones was appointed sole director. Mrs Jones was appointed secretary. It appears that the agencies through which computer consultants o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
THE LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD My Lords, 1. Cond Nast Publications Ltd publishes the magazine 'Vanity Fair' in this country. Roman Polanski, the celebrated film director, is suing Cond Nast for libel in respect an article included in the July 2002 edition of this magazine. 2. The words of which Mr Polanski complains refer to an incident said to have taken place 35 years ago. On the night of 8 August 1969 Mr Polanski's wife, the actress Sharon Tate, was murdered at their home in California USA by members of the so-called 'Manson Family'. Mr Polanski was working in London at the time. He flew to California and remained there until after his wife's funeral on 13 August 1969. On his return journey from Los Angeles to London he stopped in New York. He went to 'Elaine's' restaurant. There he met the actress Mia Farrow. That was on 27 August 1969 or thereabouts. 3. The July 2002 edition of 'Vanity Fair' contained a feature article about 'Elaine's'. The article included the following passage:...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. On 20 December 2002 the Court of Appeal (Schiemann and Rix LJJ and Pumfrey J) held ([2002] EWCA Civ 1882, [2003] QB 993), reversing a decision of the Queen's Bench Divisional Court (Simon Brown LJ and Scott Baker J: [2002] EWHC 230 Admin, [2002] 1 WLR 1857), that the Secretary of State was legally bound to pay compensation to Mr Mullen. The Secretary of State now challenges the Court of Appeal's ruling and seeks to reinstate the Divisional Court's ruling in his favour. 2. In agreement with all members of the committee I would allow the Secretary of State's appeal. But I would do so on a narrow ground, less far-reaching than the main submission made on behalf of the Secretary of State. In explaining the reasons for my decision, I will adopt, without repeating, the account of the facts given by my noble and learned friend Lord Steyn. 3. In paragraphs 7 and 8 of my opinion in R v Secretary of State, Ex p McFarland [2004] UKHL 17, I drew attention to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
The Lord Chancellor MY LORDS, The question in this case is whether two sums of 20,000 each which were paid to the Appellant by a Company named Stevenson and Howell Ltd., carrying on the business of manufacturing chemists,of which he was Managing Director, fall to be assessed for income tax under Schedule E. as being profits from his employment as such Director. The circumstances in which this question arises are very special, and before a correct solution can be reached, it is necessary to refer to three Agreements made at different dates between the Company and the Appellant. The first of these Agreements is dated December 19th, 1921. It recites that the Appellant was the inventor of a secret process for the manufacture of a product to be used by the Company in connection with their business. Under this Agreement, the Appellant, who was already a Director of the Company, divulged to the then Managing Director, his secret process, and the Company contracted to pay to the Appellant a ro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe. For the reasons he gives, with which I agree, I would allow this appeal. LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 2. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe. For the reasons he gives, with which I agree, I would allow this appeal. LORD PHILLIPS OF WORTH MATRAVERS My Lords, 3. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe. For the reasons he gives, with which I agree, I would allow this appeal. LORD WALKER OF GESTINGTHORPE My Lords, 4. This appeal is concerned with interest on advance corporation tax ("ACT") which should have been paid to the Revenue by the appellant, Mellham Ltd ("Mellham") in respect of a dividend which it paid to its holding company, Mellham Holdings Ltd ("Holdings"). The issue is in t...
Tag this Judgment!