Law reports

Criminal

Corrupt practice - immigration consultant and Crown agent conspiring to destroy Home Office files - Crown and government department not 'public body'

R v Natji (Naci Vedat): CA (Lord Justice Mantell, Mr Justice Bennett and Judge Stephens QC): 14 February 2002

The appellant, who set up an immigration consultancy business after retiring as an administrative officer in the Home Office Immigration and Nationality Department, arranged for an executive officer in the Home Office Department to pass to him home files relating to his clients.

Each client would pay 500 for the file to be destroyed thus gaining a considerable delay in immigration procedure.

The appellant, following his plea of guilty to an offence of corruption contrary to section 1(2) of the Public Bodies Corruption Act 1889, appealed against his conviction that there was no case to answer as the Crown was not a public authority within section 7 of the 1889 Act.

Ivan Krolick (instructed by the Registrar of Appeals) for the appellants; Francis Sheridan (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service, HQ) for the Crown.

Held, allowing the appeal, that, although it was common ground between counsel that 'public body' in section 7 of the 1889 Act did not include the Crown, the issue was whether the Crown was included in 'public authorities of all descriptions' under section 4(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916 (amending the 1889 Act); that the question was what the words 'public authority of all descriptions' meant in 1916; that section 7 of the 1889 Act did not bring the Crown within the expression 'public body' and unless the Crown could be brought within 'public authorities of all descriptions' in section 4(2) of the 1916 Act, the 1889 Act would not apply to the appellant; that further support could be gained from section 2 of the 1916 Act as a distinction was made between the Crown and any government department and 'a public body' and that the definition of 'public body' in section 7 of the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889, as amended by section 4(2) of the 1916 Act, did not include a Government department or the Crown.

Damages

Personal injury cases - discount rate prescribed by Lord Chancellor on damages for future loss - evidence of more appropriate rate - divergence from set rate only in exceptional circumstances

Warriner v Warriner: CA (Lords Justice Mummery, Latham and Dyson): 24 January 2002

The claimant was severely injured in a road traffic accident for which the defendant admitted liability.

Quantum remained in issue.

At a case management conference the judge made an order permitting evidence to be adduced at trial challenging the correct discount rate to be applied for a sum awarded for future pecuniary loss.

The defendant appealed.

John Leighton Williams QC and Anthony Seys Llewellyn (instructed by Beachcroft Wansbroughs) for Mr Warriner; Laura Cox QC and Patricia Hitchcock (instructed by Irwin Mitchell, Sheffield) for Ms Warriner.

Held, allowing the appeal, that where for the purposes of section 1(2) of the Damages Act 1996 the court had to decide whether a different discount rate than that prescribed by the Lord Chancellor on a sum awarded as damages for future pecuniary loss in a personal injury action was more appropriate, it had to have regard to the Lord Chancellor's reasons for fixing the rate as he did and to the policy considerations behind those reasons; that only if the case came into a category which the Lord Chancellor had not considered and/or had special features material to the choice of rate of return and shown not to have been taken into account by him might a different rate be more appropriate; that it was likely that only in comparatively few cases that section 1(2) would be successfully invoked; and that there was nothing in the facts to make it more appropriate to apply a lower rate than that prescribed.

Land

Rectification of register - land fraudulently registered and sold - rightful owner claiming rectification of register and seeking damages for trespass - rightful owner in 'actual occupation' so as to bring claim for trespass

Malory Enterprises Ltd v Cheshire Homes (UK) Ltd & Others: CA (Lords Justice Schiemann, Clarke and Arden): 22 February 2002

The registered proprietor of derelict land owned by the claimant obtained registration by fraud and had transferred the site to the first defendant, in whose name it was then registered.

The first defendant later entered on the land.

It was common ground that the register should be rectified pursuant to section 82 of the Land Registration Act 1925, but the claimant sought damages for trespass against the first defendant and an order that the rectification should be retrospective to 12 January 1999, the date when the first defendant was registered as proprietor.

On 23 February 2001, the judge made the order sought.

The first defendant appealed.

John Martin QC and Richard Oughton (instructed by Aziz Saunders, Manchester) for the appellant.

John Dagnall (instructed by Pannone & Partners) for the respondent.

Nicholas Caddick (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Chief Land Registrar.

Held, dismissing the appeal save as to the retrospective effect of rectification, that the first defendant's position once registered was governed by section 69 of the 1925 Act and was thus deemed to have vested in it only the legal estate; that since the transfer to the first defendant could not in itself be of any effect in law, it could not constitute a 'disposition' to which section 20 could apply giving absolute title; and that, accordingly, the first defendant's status as registered proprietor was subject to the rights of the claimant as beneficial owner with the result that the claimant, who was in actual occupation of the land within section 70(1)(g), had sufficient standing to sue for trespass without rectification.