Law Reports: Case Summaries; 8 March 1999 Law Reports
THE FOLLOWING notes of judgments were prepared by the reporters of the All England Law Reports.
Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Anchor Foods Ltd; Ch D (Neuberger J) 26 February 1999. A MAREVA injunction to restrain the defendant from selling or disposing of its assets was granted on the condition that a cross- undertaking in damages was provided. Although the purpose of the Mareva jurisdiction was to afford protection to a person with a good arguable claim and not to impede or interfere with an ordinary bona fide business transaction, the court was satisfied that justice and convenience would best be served if an injunction was granted. Richard McCombe QC, Paul Girolami, Amanda Tipples (Solr for Customs and Excise) for the commissioners; David Pannick QC, Adam Lewis, Sandra Bristoll (Dibb Lupton Alsop) for the defendant. Costs Tate v Hart; CA (Auld, Sedley LJJ) 1 March 1999. WHERE A court found that that, in appealing against a wasted costs order, solicitors had not been in breach of the Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989, the wasted costs order should not have been upheld on the basis that they had acted either unreasonably or negligently as defined in the notes to RSC Ord 62, r 11(2). The court was wrong to impose an extra obligation which was not found to be imposed by the regulations, and to base that duty upon some higher standard founded on a concept of unreasonableness or negligence, especially where the making of a punitive order such as a wasted costs order was involved. Alan Evans (Krivinkas & Co, Manchester) for the plaintiff; Paul Creaner (Bleasdale & Co, Whitehaven) for the defendant. Sentencing R v Brown and ors; CA, Crim Div (Auld LJ, Forbes, David Steel JJ) 3 Feb 1999. WHILST SUBSTANTIAL sentences were justified for offences of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and conspiracy to corrupt a police officer because of the impact of such offences on the criminal justice system, a starting point of 13 years' imprisonment was far too high, even where a defendant who was a former police officer had used know-how and contacts gained during his time in the police force in committing a pattern of serious offences. …