CASE SUMMARIES v 18 November 1996

The following notes of judgments were prepared by the reporters of the All England Law Reports.

Judicial notice

Hackney LBC v Mullen; CA (Waite, Saville, Otton LJJ) 18 Oct 1996.

A county court judge was entitled, when imposing a pounds 5,000 fine on a local housing authority for its contempt in breaching an undertaking to perform its repairing obligations under a lease, to take judicial notice of numerous instances of past contempt in other claims against the authority by its tenants. Since the trial judge, who had sat for some 10 years at that court, was able to consult court records as well as draw on his own experience, the authority's bad record was sufficiently notorious to be something of which he could take judicial notice.

Ranjit Bhose (Christopher Hinde, Hackney) for the council; the plaintiff did not appear.

Property

Trustee in Bankruptcy of Vernon John Schuppan v Jennifer Kay Schuppan; ChD (Judge Maddocks) 28 Oct 1996.

The principle enunciated by Lord Bridge in Lloyds Bank plc v Rossett [1991] 1 AC 107 at 132, that a partner who acted in reliance on a prior agreement that real property owned by another was to be shared beneficially was entitled to the grant of a constructive trust, was not defeated by the fact that the other party's ownership of the property was effected through the medium of a wholly owned company.

Robin Knowles (Travers Smith Braithwaite) for the trustee; Mrs Schuppan in person.

Sentencing

R v Grimsby & Cleethorpes JJ, ex p Walters; QB Div Ct (Bingham LCJ, Blofeld J) 22 Oct 1996.

Where justices having dealt with a defendant for various offences of dishonesty, sentencing him to two months' imprisonment, then went on to commit him to a consecutive term for an entirely discrete matter involving non-payment of fines and compensation orders, they need not inquire as to alternative means of dealing with the defendant under s 82 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980, since he was already bound to serve a term of imprisonment for the dishonesty offences.

Ian Wise (Chattertons, Boston) for the applicant; the respondent was not represented and did not appear.

R v Harrow JJ, ex p Jordan; QB Div Ct (Bingham LCJ, Blofeld J) 21 Oct 1996.

A magistrates' court could not convict a defendant for a summary offence committed whilst he was on licence, sentence him, and then commit him to the Crown Court to deal with revocation of the licence. Section 40(3)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 suggested the power to deal with an existing offence and the question of return had either to be dealt with in both cases by the magistrates' court or by the Crown Court. Although a magistrates' court had power to deal with both matters, the better course was to commit both to the Crown Court.

Sarah Maguire (Blackman van Emden) for the applicant; Stephen John (CPS) for the respondent.

Tax

Inland Revenue Commrs v Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd; ChD (Sir John Vinelott) 30 Oct 1996.

A pension scheme which was exempt from tax was nevertheless capable of obtaining a "tax advantage" within s 709(1) of the Income & Corporation Taxes Act 1988 for the purposes of the anti-avoidance provisions in ss 703 and 704. The court declined to follow the holding in Sheppard (Trustees of Woodland Trust) v Inland Revenue Commrs (No 2) [1992] STC 460, that an already exempt body was incapable of obtaining a tax advantage. Where "relief" was in issue, as opposed to the exemption itself, an exempt body might be regarded as obtaining a "relief" from tax and thus obtaining a "tax advantage".

Launcelot Henderson QC (Inland Revenue); David Milne QC, Roger Thomas (Alsop Dipp Lupton, Liverpool) for USS Ltd.

VAT

R v City of London Magistrates, ex p Peters; QB Div Ct (Blofeld and Laws JJ) 23 Oct 1996.

An access order, made under para 11 of Sch 11 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994, which stated on its face that a magistrate had "reasonable grounds to suspect" that an offence in connection with VAT had been committed and that the bank to which the order was directed was in possession of recorded information which might be required as evidence in proceedings in respect of such an offence, was not defective simply because it failed to recite the grounds which had persuaded the magistrate to make it.

Robin Mathew QC, Gordon Bennett (Nathan Silman) for the applicants; David Barnard (Customs and Excise) for the respondent.