Law reports

Costs

Protracted family proceedings - summary assessment of costs permissible

Q v Q (Family Proceedings: Costs Order): FD (Mr Justice Wilson): 21 June 2002

The mother applied for summary assessment of costs in the sum of 336,000 against the father at the conclusion of a long hearing relating to the child of the marriage.

The father contended that since 26 April 1999 costs in family proceedings had been governed by parts 43, 44, 47 and 48 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 and the supplementary practice direction, that the consequent abrogation of order 62, rule 7(4)(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1965 had destroyed the authority of Leary v Leary [1987] 1 WLR 72 and that the 'general rule' articulated in paragraph 13.2 of the practice direction in relation to the assessment of the costs of a hearing which had lasted not more than one day implied a 'general rule' requiring detailed assessment of costs in longer hearings.

Judith Parker QC and Deborah Eaton (instructed by Collyer-Bristow) for the mother; Nicholas Mostyn QC and Timothy Bishop (instructed by Sears Tooth) for the father.

Held, granting the application and ordering costs in the sum of 150,000, that there was no rebuttable presumption against summary assessment in relation to costs where hearings lasted longer than one day; that on the contrary there was now more of a steer than hitherto towards summary assessment of such costs since, under paragraph 13.1 of the practice direction, the exercise of the power to make a summary assessment must now be considered in every case; that in family cases in particular the aggravation of detailed assessment of costs could run counter to the design of reducing contention and achieving satisfactory resolution of disputes.

Criminal

Causing death by dangerous driving - sentence - many deaths resulting from course of dangerous driving - sentences to be concurrent

R v Noble: CA (Lord Justice Keene, Mr Justice Davis and Judge John Griffith Williams QC): 24 June 2002

The defendant was convicted in the Crown Court of six counts of causing death by dangerous driving and was sentenced to concurrent terms of five years' imprisonment on three of the counts (relating to the three passengers killed in the appellant's vehicle) and to terms of ten years' imprisonment on the other three counts (relating to the three people killed in a vehicle with which the appellant's collided), concurrent inter se but consecutive to the five-year terms; and he was ordered to be disqualified from driving for life.

The defendant appealed against sentence on the grounds that the ten-year terms (which were the maximum permitted for the offence) were excessive, and that the judge had erred in making those sentences consecutive to the five-year terms.

Robert Smith QC and James Baird (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the appellant.

Held, allowing the appeal, that nearly all the aggravating features in R v Boswell [1984] 1 WLR 1047, CA were present, with scarce, if any, mitigation, and a worse case was hard to imagine, or to find reported, involving as it did a 'motorised pub-crawl'; that the length of sentence was not excessive, although eight years appeared to be the longest reported sentence; but that the terms should have been concurrent since, although consecutive sentences were possible, they generally arose where there were different offences; that although the number of deaths resulting was relevant that was only one of the factors to be considered; and that the lifetime disqualification would be upheld.

Education

School - control of class size - local education authority refusing admission of children to school preferred by parents - appeal panel not entitled to inquire into reasonableness of published admission policy

Hounslow London Borough Council v School Admission Appeals Panel for Hounslow London Borough Council; CA (Lords Justice Kennedy, May and Tuckey); 25 June 2002

The local education authority, in order to restrict infants' school class sizes to 30 children, published its policy documents relating to admission arrangements to primary schools giving, in case of oversubscription, admission priority to a child living nearest to the school rather than to a child whose older sibling was at school, as operated before 1992.

The education authority refused admission to four children of different families living in the borough; in each case the child's older brother or sister was at the school.

The school admission appeals panel allowed the families' appeals on the ground that the policy of the admission arrangements of the authority was unreasonable.

The panel's decisions were quashed on judicial review.

The panel appealed.

Tim Kerr QC and Deborah Hay (instructed by A E Smith & Son, Stroud) for the panel; Peter Oldham (instructed by the Borough Solicitor) for Hounslow London Borough Council; John Friel (instructed by Price Watkins, Bristol) for the interested parties.

Held, dismissing the appeal, that the power of the panel under paragraph 12 of schedule 24 to the School Standards and Frame-work Act 1998 was to allow the appeal if the authority's refusal to admit children was unreasonable or perverse by reason of inflexible application of its published admissions arrangements to the circumstances of the particular child under section 89 of the Act; and that the panel had no jurisdiction to undertake the exercise of a 'judicial review analysis' of whether the criteria of the authority's published admission were reasonable or perverse for the purpose of allowing an appeal.

Tort

Negligence - student injured while skiing unsupervised - school's skiing supervisor not negligent

Chittock v Woodbridge School; CA (Lords Justice Auld and Carnwath and Sir Swinton Thomas); 26 June 2002

The claimant, a sixth form student with skiing experience, went on a school holiday skiing trip accompanied by an experienced supervisor and teachers.

The claimant and another student were reprimanded by the supervisor for skiing off-piste and on their promise not to repeat skiing off-piste they were allowed to ski on-piste.

On a later date, the claimant, while skiing on-piste, fell and was severely injured.

The judge held the school liable in negligence for the supervisor's failure to confiscate the claimant's ski pass and allowing the claimant to ski unsupervised and also held the claimant contributorily negligent to the extent of 50%.

The school appealed.

Edward Faulks QC and Edward Bishop (instructed by Weightman Vizards) for the school; David Wilby QC and David de Jehan (instructed by Marrons, Newcastle upon Tyne) for the claimant.

Held, allowing the appeal, that while the supervisor owed a duty to the claimant to show him the same care as a reasonably careful parent credited with skiing experience and familiar with its risks, such a duty did not extend to ensure the safety against injury from skiing mishaps which might result from the claimant's own misjudgments or inadvertence when skiing unsupervised; that the supervisor was entitled to take into account the known level of the claimant's skiing experience and competence and rely on those factors to exercise one of several reasonable options open to him as a reasonable supervisor; and that the reprimand of the claimant and the acceptance of his promise to ski on-piste to allow him to ski unsupervised as an experienced skiing student was within the range of reasonable responses for a supervisor of his experience.

The law reports are prepared by the reporters to the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales; telephone: 020 7242 6471; fax: 020 7831 5247; http://www.lawreports.co.uk