House of Lords Journal 232 (Session 1998-99)


Previous Next

Tuesday 5 October 1999

The House met at half-past ten o’clock.

The following Lords Spiritual and Temporal were present:

Browne-Wilkinson, L.
Carlisle, Bp.
Carlisle, E.
Clyde, L.
Cooke of Thorndon, L.
Hope of Craighead, L.
Steyn, L.

PRAYERS were read by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle.

1.In re Gilligan (Appellant) (application for a writ of Habeas Corpus) (On appeal from a Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division)—
2.In re Ellis (Appellant) (application for a writ of Habeas Corpus) (On appeal from a Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division)—

(Conjoined appeals)—

The Cause was further and fully heard; it was ordered and adjudged that, in the case of Gilligan, the Order of the Divisional Court of 12th January 1998 be affirmed and the appeal dismissed; and that, in the case of Ellis, the Order of the Divisional Court of 27th January 1998 be affirmed and the appeal dismissed.

3.Regina v. Antoine (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))—The appeal of Pierre Harrison Antoine was presented and ordered to be prosecuted subject to the procedures applicable thereto.
4.Amoco (U.K.) Exploration Company (a company incorporated in Delaware, USA) and others (Petitioners) v. Teesside Gas Transportation Limited (Respondents)—The petition of Amoco (U.K.) Exploration Company, BG International Limited (formerly Gas Council (Exploration) Limited), Amerada Hess Limited, BG North Sea Holdings Limited (formerly North Sea Holdings Limited), Agip (U.K.) Limited, Fina Exploration Limited and Phillips Petroleum Company United Kingdom Limited praying for leave to appeal was presented and referred to an Appeal Committee.
5.Amoco (U.K.) Exploration Company (a company incorporated in Delaware, USA) and others (Petitioners) v. Imperial Chemical Industries plc and others (Respondents)—The petition of Amoco (U.K.) Exploration Company, BG International Limited (formerly Gas Council (Exploration) Limited), Amerada Hess Limited and BG North Sea Holdings Limited (formerly North Sea Holdings Limited) praying for leave to appeal was presented and referred to an Appeal Committee.
6.Three Rivers District Council and others (Original Appellants and Cross-Respondents) v. Governor and Company of the Bank of England (Original Respondents and Cross-Appellants)—The appeal was set down for hearing and referred to an Appellate Committee.
7.Turkington and others (practising as McCartan Turkington Breen) (Respondents) v. Times Newspapers Limited (Appellants) (Northern Ireland)—The appeal was set down for hearing and referred to an Appellate Committee.
8.Arthur J S Hall & Co (Appellants) v. Simons (A.P.) (Respondent)—
9.Barratt (Respondent) v. Ansell and others (trading as Woolf Seddon (a firm)) (Appellants)—
10.Harris (Respondent) v. Scholfield Roberts & Hill (a firm) (Appellants) and others—

The petition of the appellants praying that the appeals be conjoined, that they be allowed to lodge one statement, case and appendix in respect of the three appeals and be jointly

Page 676

1998-99

Volume 232      

represented and that the respondents have leave to lodge one case in respect of the three appeals and be jointly represented (the agents for the respondents consenting thereto) was presented; and it was ordered as prayed.

11.White (Appellant) v. White (Respondent) (First Appeal)—
12.White (Appellant) v. White (Respondent) (Second Appeal)—

(Conjoined Appeals)—

The petition of the appellants praying that the time for lodging the statement and appendix and setting down the cause for hearing might be extended to 17th November next (the agents for the respondents consenting thereto) was presented; and it was ordered as prayed.

13.Three Rivers District Council and others (Appellants) v. Governor and Company of the Bank of England (Respondents) (Second Appeal)—The petition of the appellants praying that the time for lodging the statement and appendix and setting down the cause for hearing might be extended to six weeks after the determination of the First Appeal or to such other date as specified by the House (the agents for the respondents consenting thereto) was presented; and it was ordered as prayed.
14.MacNiven (Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes) (Appellant) v. Westmoreland Investments Limited (Respondents)—The petition of the appellant praying that the time for lodging the statement and appendix and setting down the cause for hearing might be extended to 13th October next (the agents for the respondents consenting thereto) was presented; and it was ordered as prayed.
15.Magill (Appellant) v. Porter (Respondent) (England)—The petition of the appellant praying that the time for lodging the statement and appendix and setting down the cause for hearing might be extended to 17th November next (the agents for the respondent consenting thereto) was presented; and it was ordered as prayed.
16.Magill (Appellant) v. Weeks (Respondent)—The petition of the appellant praying that the time for lodging the statement and appendix and setting down the cause for hearing might be extended to 17th November next (the agents for the respondent consenting thereto) was presented; and it was ordered as prayed.
17.Arthur J S Hall & Co (Appellants) v. Simons (A.P.) (Respondent)—
18.Barratt (Respondent) v. Ansell and others (trading as Woolf Seddon (a firm)) (Appellants)—
19.Harris (Respondent) v. Scholfield Roberts & Hill (a firm) (Appellants) and others—

(Conjoined Appeals)—

The petition of the appellants praying that the time for lodging the statement and appendix and setting down the cause for hearing might be extended to 3rd November next (the agents for the respondents consenting thereto) was presented; and it was ordered as prayed.

20.Government of the United States of America (Respondents) v. Montgomery and another (Appellants)—The petition of the appellants praying that the time for lodging the statement and appendix and setting down the cause for hearing might be extended to 17th November next (the agents for the respondents consenting thereto) was presented; and it was ordered as prayed.
21.Morgans (A.P.) (Appellant) v. Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) (On Appeal from a Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division)—The appellants legal aid certificate was lodged.

The House was adjourned at three minutes past four o’clock
till tomorrow, half-past ten o’clock.