Law Report: Case Summaries

The Independent (London, England), June 12, 2000 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

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.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Law Report: Case Summaries


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?