Law Report: Case Summaries
THE FOLLOWING notes of judgments were prepared by the reporters of the All England Law Reports.
Nelson v Kingston Cables Distributors Ltd; EAT (Commissioner Howell Qc, Mrs T Marsland, Mr K Young) 2 May 2000.
Where an employer had given a clear indication in advance of an employee's return from maternity leave that the old conditions of her job would no longer be available to her and that she would have to accept a fundamental change if and when she did return to work, the employer could be held thereby to have evinced an intention not to continue performing his part of the original contract. That would be capable of giving rise to an anticipatory breach of contract, entitling the employee to treat the contract as having been brought to an end, under the ordinary principles of contract.
Helen Gower (Gosschalks) for the applicant; David Christie (Wallace Robinson & Morgan) for the employer.
Norwich City Council v Stringer; CA (Otton, Buxton LJJ) 3 May 2000.
Where a landlord had repaid sums of overpaid housing benefit in circumstances where, due to a defective notice of determination of recoverable overpayment, the local authority was unable to to recover those sums by way of proceedings in the county court, the landlord had no right of restitution.
David Bean QC (Nash & Co, Plymouth) for the landlord; Andrew Arden QC, Josephine Henderson (Richard Auton) for the council.
Daniels v Walker; CA (Lord Woolf MR, Latham LJ) 3 May 2000.
Where the parties to an action had agreed, in pursuance of the provisions of Pt 35 of the CPR, to instruct a joint expert witness, that did not prevent one of the parties being allowed the facility to obtain a report from another expert, or to rely on the evidence of another expert.
Ralph Lewis QC (Russell Jones & Walker, Birmingham) for the claimant; Anthony Temple QC, Martin Spencer (John Stallard & Co, Worcester) for the defendant.
Re JS; Fam D (Black J) 4 April 2000.
Where an order under s 18 of the Adoption Act 1976 freeing a child for adoption had been made without the mother's consent on the ground that she had withheld her consent unreasonably, the court could subsequently, in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, revoke the freeing order on the application of the local authority, notwithstanding that the requirements of s 20 of the Act (ie that an order to revoke could only be made by "the former parent", and that only 12 months had elapsed since the making of the original order) had not been fulfilled. …