Law report: Case Summaries

The following notes of judgments were prepared by the reporters of the All England Law Reports.

Limitation

Earnshaw and ors v Hartley; CA (Nourse, Buxton LJJ. Sir Christopher Staughton) 31 Mar 1999.

THE INTEREST of someone absolutely entitled to a share in an unadministered estate was a sufficient interest for the purposes of s 9 of the Limitation Act 1980. Where, therefore, one beneficiary had been in possession of property comprising such an estate he was unable to sustain a claim for adverse possession against the other beneficiaries.

Barry Coulter (Ursula Bagnall & Co, Totnes) for the plaintiffs; Paul Creaner (Waddington & Son) Burnley) for the defendants.

Solicitor

Pilbrow v Pearless de Rougemont & Co; CA (Butler-Sloss, Schiemann LJJ) 17 Mar 1999.

WHERE A client asked to see a solicitor there was a contract to provide legal services between the firm and the client. If the firm, without informing the client, provided an advisor who was not actually a solicitor, it had not performed the contract at all, and was not entitled to recover its fees from the client.

Richard Robinson (Pearless de Rougement & Co, East Grinstead) for the plaintiffs; John Critchley (Hodkin & Co, East Grinstead) for the defendant.

Hood Sailmakers Ltd v Berthom Boat Co Ltd; CA (Auld, Sedley LJJ) 24 Mar 1999.

WHERE A judge noticed the existence of a possible conflict of interest concerning a solicitor in a case, it was entirely proper for him to ask the party affected whether he took any point on it. It was not, however, for the judge to take the point of his own motion. If the party whose interests and confidentiality were possibly at risk took no point on the matter there was nothing for the court to decide.

S. Graham Campbell (Scott Bailey & Co) for the appellant; Mark Loveday (Halsey Lightly) for the respondent.

Children

Dawson v Wearmouth; HL (Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Clyde, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough) 25 Mar 1999.

WHERE THERE was an application to change a child's surname, the court had to apply the criteria set out in s 1 of the Children Act 1989, including s 1(5), and not make an order for a change of name in the absence of some evidence that it would lead to an improvement in the child's welfare, and in that connection the conclusion of a welfare officer was relevant.

James Munby QC (Catriona Duthie) for the appellant; Roger Haywood Smith QC, Richard Harrison (Clarke Willmott & Clarke) for the respondent.

Will

Re Killick (deceased); Killick v Pountney and anor; Ch D (James Munby QC sitting as a deputy High Court judge) 31 Mar 1999.

ALTHOUGH, WHERE there was evidence showing the exertion of improper influence in relation to the execution of a will, it would be easier to find that the will had been obtained by undue influence if the testator was enfeebled in body and/or mind, no amount of evidence of bodily or mental infirmity would of itself establish undue influence without independent evidence tending to show the exercise of improper influence.

Martin Russell (Allen, Ticehurst & Bird, East Grinstead) for the plaintiff; the defendants did not appear.

Company

Re Wilmott Trading Ltd; Henry v Environment Agency; Ch D (Neuberger J) 31 Mar 1999.

WHERE A company which had no assets other than a waste management licence was wound up in accordance with s 106 of the Insolvency Act 1986, there was nothing in company law, insolvency law or environmental protection law to prevent the court from concluding that the company could be dissolved pursuant to s 201(2) of the Act.

Steven Woolf (Bell Wright & Dallman) for the liquidator; Rex Tedd QC, Andrew Macnab (Solicitor for the Environment Agency) for the agency.

Libel

Steel and anor v McDonald's Corp and anor; CA (Pill, May LJJ, Keene J) 31 Mar 1999.

NOTWITHSTANDING A decision in Derbyshire CC v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] 1 All ER 1011 that a democratically elected public body could not maintain an action for libel, commercial corporations, however large, were constitutionally in a quite different position, and it was not open to the court to invent a category of commercial corporation which should, exceptionally, not be able to maintain such an action.

The defendants appeared in person; Richard Rampton QC, Timothy Atkinson (Barlow Lyde & Gilbert) for the plaintiffs.