The following notes of judgments were prepared by the reporters of the All England Law Reports.
Porter v Secretary of State for Transport; CA (Stuart-Smith, Peter Gibson, Thorpe LJJ) 16 May 1996.
The issue by the Environment Secretary of a certificate of appropriate alternative development, on an appeal to him under s 18 of the Land Compensation Act 1961, could not give rise either to an issue estoppel or estoppel per rem judicatem which would bind the claimants and the acquiring authority (the Transport Secretary) in a subsequent assessment of compensation before the Lands Tribunal.
Michael Barnes QC, Christopher Katkowski (Treasury Solicitor) for the Transport Secretary; Malcolm Spence QC, Nicholas Nardecchia (Rooks Rider) for the respondents.
Stern v Piper; CA (Hirst, Simon Brown LJJ, Sir Ralph Gibson) 21 May 1996
The repetition rule, that it was no defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to prove that he was merely repeating what he had been told, did not apply to the publication of extracts from an affirmation in a pending lawsuit. Although such a report of statements was essentially hearsay, and therefore prima facie within the rule, reports of affidavits or other court documents were not protected by privilege in the same way as reports of proceedings in open court. The judge erred in refusing to strike out the defendants' plea of justification; the defence of justification was not available.
James Price QC (Manches & Co) for the plaintiff; David Eady QC, Manuel Barca (Mishcon de Reya) for the defendants.
R v Mental Health Review Tribunal ex p Pierce; QBD (Harrison J) 20 May 1996.
Where the tribunal was under a mandatory duty to discharge a patient under s 72(1)(b)(iii) of the Mental Health Act 1983, they could still direct that discharge be deferred under s 72(3). Had Parliament intended deferment only to apply to discretionary discharges, it would have so specified. …