The following notes of judgments were prepared by the reporters of the All England Law Reports.
Union Bank of Finland Ltd v Lelakis; QBD Comm Ct (Langley J) 11 June 1996.
A judgment debtor who had been served a notice under RSC Ord 48, r 1 to attend an examination before a master as to his means was not entitled to object to attending on the ground that conduct money had not been tendered to him, because the judgment creditor's solicitor had adequately tendered it by giving an undertaking in a letter to pay the debtor's reasonable costs of such attendance and by giving the notice in reasonable time before the return date.
Andrew Hochhauser, Pertida Cargill-Thompson (Watson Farley & Williams) for the plaintiffs; Steven Gee QC, Vasanti Selvaratnam (Holman Fenwick & Willan) for the defendant.
R v Ireland; CA (Crim Div) (Swinton Thomas LJ, Tucker, Douglas Brown JJ) 14 May 1996.
The making of silent telephone calls was capable of amounting to a relevant act for the purposes of the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The act consisted in the making of the call and it did not matter whether words or silence ensued.
Philip Richards (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the appellant; Christopher Llwellyn-Jones QC, Roger Griffiths (CPS) for the Crown.
Re Chetta; QB Div Ct (Henry LJ, Ebsworth J) 6 June 1996.
For the purposes of s 16 of the Extradition Act 1989, judicial review proceedings were instituted when a notice of motion applying for leave to apply for judicial review was made and lodged with the Crown Office, since that showed that the applicant has sought the court's protection. The Home Secretary's policy not to give reasons for ordering a fugitive offender's return to a requesting country until after leave had been granted was arguably wrong, since the requirement to give reasons was to enable a potential applicant to know the grounds relied on by the Home Secretary so he could decide whether to apply for judicial review. …