Law Report: Case Summaries
17 July 2000
THE FOLLOWING notes of judgments were prepared by the reporters of the All England Law Reports.
Shanning International Ltd (in liquidation) v Lloyds TSB Bank plc (formerly Lloyds Bank plc) and ors; CA (Simon Brown, Judge, Tuckey LJJ) 25 May 2000.
Council Regulation (EEC) 3541/92, which was brought into force after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and which prohibited anyone within the community from satisfying any claim made under or in connection with a transaction of which the performance was affected by the sanctions imposed on trade with Iraq, was valid and of permanent effect.
Iain Milligan QC, Stephen Morris (Norton Rose) for the claimants; Mark Hapgood QC (CMS Cameron McKenna) for L; John Davies, Peter Trete (Teacher Stern Selby) for R.
Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd v Marks & Spencer plc; CA (Peter Gibson, Chadwick, Mance LJJ) 26 May 2000.
The term "typographical arrangement of published editions" in s 1(1)(c) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 referred not to the typographical arrangement of each article published in a newspaper, but to the typographical arrangement of a whole newspaper.
Kevin Garnett QC (Herbert Smith) for NLA; Michael Silverleaf QC, Mark Vanhegan (Heather Macrae) for M&S.
DPP v Weeks; QBD, Div Ct (Rose LJ, Holland J) 14 June 2000.
Whether or not it was the intention of a person who used the words "black bastard" to cause harassment, alarm and distress for the purposes of s 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 and s 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 would depend on the circumstances of the case and the context in which the words were uttered, and it would be for the fact finding tribunal to decide whether on the particular facts of the case the requisite intent had been shown.
Peter Davies (CPS) for the Crown; the respondent did not appear and was not represented.
Sidhu v Aerospace Composite Technology Ltd; CA (Peter Gibson, Brooke, Robert Walker LJJ) 26 May 2000.
Where an employer had dismissed a Sikh employee who had been involved in a violent incident provoked by racial insults from a white fellow employee, and its disciplinary procedure had been shown to be non race- specific, the employer had not discriminated against the Sikh employee on grounds of his race within s 1(1)(a) of the Race Relations Act 1976. …