Law Report: Case Summaries; 22 May 2000
THE FOLLOWING notes of judgments were prepared by the reporters of the All England Law Reports.
Ramdeen v The State; PC (Lord Hutton, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Sir Andrew Leggatt) 23 March 2000.
It might be arguable that the decision in Reckley v Minister of State for Public Safety and Immigration (No 2)  AC 527, namely that the exercise of the prerogative of mercy was not a matter which could be reviewed by the courts, was confined to the exercise of the prerogative to pardon, and did not relate to a decision whether or not to refer the whole of a case where the Privy Council had previously dismissed a petition to the Court of Appeal on the emergence of compelling fresh evidence.
Peter Carter QC and Ella Schulster (Simmons & Simmons) for the petitioner.
James Dingemans (Charles Russell) for the State.
Henry Boot Construction Ltd v Alstom Combined Cycles Ltd; CA (Beldam, Ward LJJ, Lord Lloyd) 4 April 2000.
The words "so far as may be reasonable" in cl 52(1)(b) of the ICE Standard Conditions of Contract, 6th edn, required a comparison between the work covered by the variation order and the work priced in the Bill of Quantities, but did not allow the engineer to open up or disregard the rates on the ground that they had been inserted by mistake.
Stephen Furst QC (Taylor Joynson Garrett) for the contractors; Lord Neill of Bladen QC (Lovells) for the employers.
Parker Hale Ltd v Commrs of Customs and Excise; QBD, Div Ct (Moses J) 4 April 2000.
Compensation received following the surrender of handguns under the Firearms Act 1968 as amended was chargeable to value added tax, as the surrender of the guns to the government constituted a supply of goods.
Robert Venables QC (Edwin Coe) for the appellants; Kenneth Parker QC (Solr of Customs and Excise) for the commissioners.
Vine v Waltham Forest London Borough Council; CA (Roch, Waller, May LJJ) 5 April 2000.
Where a car had been clamped because it was parked on private property without authority, in order to show that the owner had consented to or willingly assumed the risk that it would be clamped, it had to be established that he was aware of the consequences of parking it on private property, which could be done by showing that he had seen and understood a warning notice that cars parked in that place without permission were liable to be clamped. …