LAW SUMMARIES
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The following notes of cases were prepared by reporters of the All England Law Reports.
Crime
R v Cox; CA (Cr Div) (Glidewell LJ, Popplewell, Johnson JJ); 7 March 1995.
The Court of Appeal was empowered in an appropriate case on a murder charge to apply the proviso to s 2(1) of the Criminal Appeals Act 1968 when there had been a misdirection by the judge's failure to leave the issue of provocation to the jury.
Ann Curnow QC (Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the appellant; David Farrer QC, Brendan Roche (CPS) for the Crown.
Doctor
R v General Medical Council, ex p Virik; QBD (Carnwath J); 15 Feb 1995.
The GMC cannot impose a higher standard for the registration of overseas qualified doctors with limited registration than for doctors with UK qualifications or with recognised overseas qualifications.
Robin Allen (Picton Smeathmans) for Dr Virik; Timothy Straker, Robin Green (Field Fisher & Waterhouse) for the GMC.
Libel
Gilberthorpe v Hawkins & ors; CA (McCowan, Ward LJJ, Sir Roger Parker); 15 March 1995.
The unavailability of legal aid for libel proceedings should elicit a sympathetic approach from a judge considering an application to strike out an action on the ground of delay, which the plaintiff asserted was due to his impecuniosity.
Andrew Nicol (Stephens In- nocent) for the plaintiff; Charles Gray QC, Alexandra Marzec (Farrer & Co) for News Group Newspapers Ltd; Andrew Caldecott QC (Mishcon de Reya) for Mirror Group Newspapers.
Tax
Earlspring Properties Ltd v Guest (Insp of Taxes); CA (Balcombe, Evans, Waite LJJ); 8 March 1995.
A close company was obliged to notify the Revenue of any loans to a participator or the associate of a participator under the Taxes Management Act 1970, s 10. Failure to notify relevant loans amounted to neglect and a liability to default interest under s 88 of the 1970 Act arose.
David Ewart (Stafford Young Jones) for the taxpayer; Launcelot Henderson (Inland Revenue) for the Crown.
VAT
Customs & Excise Commrs v David Lewis Centre; QBD (Owen J); 8 March 1995.
Goods supplied to a charity for use in the care and treatment of handicapped people were zero-rated for VAT as "medical supplies" under the VAT Act 1994, Sch 8, grp 15, item 5 if designed for medical uses, such as diagnosis or treatment; items such as soft furniture and special windows, which might be used for other purposes, were standard rated.
Kenneth Parker QC (Customs & Excise) for the Crown; the taxpayer did not appear.
Customs & Excise Commrs v Reed Personnel Services Ltd; QBD (Laws J); 3 March 1995.
A company providing agency nurses to the NHS did not provide "nursing services" that would have been exempt from VAT under the VAT Act 1994, Sch 9, grp 7(1)(d) or 4. The company supplied administrative services and introduced the nurses for assignment to NHS hospitals, but it was the nurses themselves who provided the nursing services.
Paul Lasok QC (Customs & Excise) for the Crown; David Milne QC, Andrew Hitchmough (Solicitor, Reed Personnel Services) for the taxpayer.
Sargent v Customs & Excise; CA (Nourse, Simon Brown, Waite LJJ); 16 Feb 1995.
A receiver, appointed in respect of specific property owned by a property company, who received rent which included VAT, had to pay the VAT to the Commissioners of Customs & Excise. The receiver was not to be treated as a taxable person under reg 11 of the VAT (General) Regs 1985 to make him personally liable, but public policy still required him to pay the VAT he had col- lected to the commissioners.
Susan Prevezer (Forsyte Saunders Kerman) for the receiver; Robert Jay (Customs & Excise) for the Crown.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments