House of Lords - Minute
       
House of Lords
Session 1999-2000
Publications on the internet
Minutes and Order Papers

Minutes and Order Paper - Minutes of Proceedings


 

HOUSE OF LORDS

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

Die Lunae 17° Aprilis 2000

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

PRAYERS were read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

1. Lord Acton (Lord Acton of Bridgnorth)—Richard Gerald Lord Acton, having been created Baron Acton of Bridgnorth, of Aldenham in the County of Shropshire, for life by Letters Patent dated in the forenoon of 17th April 2000, took and subscribed the oath pursuant to statute.

Judicial Business

2. Margulies (Petitioner) v. Margulies and others (Respondents)—The petition of Stephen David Margulies praying for leave to appeal was presented and referred to an Appeal Committee.

3. Molins plc (Respondents) v. G D SpA (Petitioners)—The petition of G D SpA praying for leave to appeal was presented and referred to an Appeal Committee.

4. Regina v. Forbes (Petitioner)—The petition of Giles Javen Forbes praying for leave to appeal in accordance with the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 was presented and referred to an Appeal Committee.

5. Appeal Committee—The following Order was made pursuant to the 32nd Report:

    Turner (Respondent) v. Grovit and others (Petitioners)—That leave to appeal be given on the terms set out in sub-paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 (ii) of paragraph 13 of the respondent’s objections; and that the petition of appeal be lodged by 2nd May next.

6. Appeal Committee—The 41st Report from the Appeal Committee was agreed to and the following Orders were made—

    Bourns Inc (Respondent) v. Raychem Corporation and another (Respondents)—That leave to appeal be refused; that the respondents be at liberty to apply for their costs in accordance with direction 5.1(d) and, if the application is granted, that the amount thereof be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments if not agreed between the parties.

    Hirst (Petitioner) v. Etherington (Respondent) and another—That the respondent be invited to lodge objections by 2nd May next.

    In re Registered Trade Marks Numbers 1,110,133; 1,213,807; 1,377,082; 1,377,083; 1,377,084; 1,377,085; 1,461,972; and 1,461,973 in the name of Bach Flower Remedies Limited (Petitioners) and in re an application by Healing Herbs Limited (Respondents) for a declaration of invalidity in respect thereof—That the petition be referred for hearing.

    Starling (Petitioner) v. Lloyds Bank TSB plc (Respondents)—That leave to appeal be refused; that the respondents be at liberty to apply for their costs in accordance with direction 5.1(d) and, if the application is granted, that the amount thereof be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments if not agreed between the parties.

    MBM Fabri-Clad Limited (Respondents) v. Eisen-Und Hüttenwerke Thale AG (Petitioners)—That leave to appeal be refused; that the respondents be at liberty to apply for their costs in accordance with direction 5.1(d) and, if the application is granted, that the amount thereof be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments if not agreed between the parties.

    Ropaigealach (A.P.) (Petitioner) v. Barclays Bank plc (Respondents)—That leave to appeal be refused; that the costs of the petitioner be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Act 1988; and that the respondents be at liberty to apply for their costs in accordance with direction 5.1(c) and, if the application is granted, that the amount thereof be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments if not agreed between the parties.

    Arab Bank plc (Respondents) v. John D Wood Commercial Limited and others and another (Petitioners)—That leave to appeal be refused; that the respondents be at liberty to apply for their costs in accordance with direction 5.1(d) and, if the application is granted, that the amount thereof be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments if not agreed between the parties.

    Slater (Respondent) v. Bancroft (Petitioner)—That leave to appeal be refused; that the respondent be at liberty to apply for his costs in accordance with direction 5.1(d) and, if the application is granted, that the amount thereof be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments if not agreed between the parties.

7. Appeal Committee—The 42nd Report from the Appeal Committee was agreed to and the following Orders were made—

    In re W (a minor) (A.P.) (Petitioner)—That leave to appeal be refused; that the costs of the petitioner be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Act 1988; and that the respondents be at liberty to apply for their costs in accordance with direction 5.1(c) and, if the application is granted, that the amount thereof be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments if not agreed between the parties.

    Regina v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Respondents) ex parte Tamosius & Partners (a firm) (Petitioners)—That leave to appeal be refused; that the respondents be at liberty to apply for their costs in accordance with direction 5.1(d) and, if the application is granted, that the amount thereof be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments if not agreed between the parties.

    In re A (A.P.) (Petitioner) (by his mother and litigation friend)—That leave to appeal be refused; that the costs of the petitioner be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Act 1988; and that the respondent be at liberty to apply for his costs in accordance with direction 5.1(c) and, if the application is granted, that the amount thereof be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments if not agreed between the parties.

Papers

8. Negative Instruments—The following instruments were laid before the House and ordered to lie on the Table:

    1. Medicines (Sale or Supply) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Regulations 2000, laid under the Medicines Act 1968;      (1070)

    2. Local Authorities (Goods and Services) (Public Bodies) (No. 2) Order 2000, laid under the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970;      (1027)

    3. (i)      Transport for London (Preliminary Arrangements) Order 2000—      (1045)

      (ii) Greater London Authority (Limitation of Salaries) Order 2000—      (1032)

    laid under the Greater London Authority Act 1999;

    4. Local Authorities (Capital Finance, Approved Investments and Contracts) (Amendment) Regulations 2000, laid under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989;      (1033)

    5. General Osteopathic Council (Restoration to the Register of Conditionally Registered Osteopaths) Rules Order of Council 2000, laid under the Osteopaths Act 1993.      (1037)

Select Committee Report

9. Science and Technology—It was ordered that the evidence taken by Sub-Committee I (Complementary and Alternative Medicine) be printed as follows:

    (a)      1st February (HL Paper 48-ii);

    (b)      8th February (HL Paper 48-iii);

    (c)      15th February (HL Paper 48-iv).

Public Business

10. Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill—It was moved by the Baroness Hollis of Heigham that the bill be now read a second time; after debate, the motion was agreed to and the bill was committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

11. Defence Evaluation Research Agency—The Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld asked Her Majesty’s Government what are their long term objectives for the Defence Evaluation Research Agency as part of the development of the United Kingdom’s knowledge-based economy; after debate, the question was answered by the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.

The House was adjourned at eight minutes before nine o’clock

till tomorrow, half-past two o’clock.

MICHAEL DAVIES

Cler: Parliamentor:

 
 
 
continue to Order Paper
 
House of Lords home page Houses of Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries ordering index


© Parliamentary copyright 2000
Prepared: 18 april 2000