Sunworld Ltd v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 2000 |
| Year | 2000 |
| Court | Divisional Court |
Crown Court - Appeal from - High Court jurisdiction - Case stated or application for judicial review - Crown Court giving fully reasoned judgment but refusing to state case on two of three questions requested by defendant - Defendant applying for judicial review of refusal - Whether case to be remitted or dealt with by High Court
The defendant company was convicted in a magistrates' court of three offences of recklessly making false statements, contrary to section 14(1)(b)(ii) of the
On the appeal and application:—
Held, granting the application for judicial review, that, since the Crown Court had given a fully reasoned judgment, there was little advantage in requiring it to set out the whole matter again by way of case stated or in compelling it to state a case on the additional questions; that the court would therefore proceed as if the challenge had been brought by judicial review rather than remit the case stated to the Crown Court for further questions; that it was difficult to find in the Crown Court's reasoning any clear indication that it had convicted the defendant on the proper basis, but the matter would not be remitted for further hearing because of the length of time that had already elapsed; and that, accordingly, the Crown Court's decision would be quashed and an order allowing the defendant's appeal against conviction substituted (post, pp. 2105F–G, 2107A, 2110B–C).
Per curiam. Where a court refuses to state a case, the party aggrieved should without delay apply for permission to bring judicial review. If the court below has already given a reasoned judgment containing all the necessary findings of fact or explained its refusal to state a case in terms which clearly raise the true point of law in issue, the correct course is for the single judge, if he thinks the point properly arguable, to grant permission for judicial review which directly challenges the order complained of. If the court below has stated a case in respect of some questions only, it may be better to apply for the case stated to be amended unless there already exists sufficient material to enable the court to deal with all the properly arguable issues in the case (post, pp. 2106E–H, 2111A).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of Simon Brown L.J.:
Airtours Plc. v. Shipley (
Reg. v. Ipswich Crown Court, Ex parte Baldwin (Note) [
Reg. v. Thames Magistrates' Court, Ex parte Levy, The Times, 17 July 1997,
Wings Ltd. v. Ellis [
No additional cases were cited in argument.
The following additional cases, although not cited, were referred to in the skeleton arguments:
Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd. v. Securities Commission [
Reg. v. Caldwell [
Reg. v. North West Suffolk (Mildenhall) Magistrates' Court, Ex parte Forest Heath District Council [
Reg. v. Reigate Justices, Ex parte Counsell (
Series v. Poole [
Tesco Supermarkets Ltd. v. Nattrass [
Yugotours Ltd. v. Wadsley (
Case Stated by the Crown Court at Blackfriars and Application for judicial review.
On 13 July 1998 three informations were laid before the West London Magistrates' Court by the prosecuting local authority, Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council, against the defendant company, Sunworld Ltd., which carried on business as a tour operator, that on three occasions between 1 October 1996 and 27 December 1996 it recklessly made false statements in its 1997 holiday brochure to a consumer, Mr. John Martin, contrary to section 14(1)(b) of the
By a notice of application for leave to apply for judicial review dated 10 June 1999 the defendant sought judicial review by way of an order of mandamus to oblige the Crown Court to state a case on the two questions on which it had refused to state a case. On 15 July 1999 Latham J. ordered that the application be renewed at the hearing of the appeal by way of case stated.
The facts are stated in the judgment of Simon Brown L.J.
John Wardell for the defendant.
Simon Blackford for the local authority.
Simon Brown L.J. On 15 April 1999 the Crown Court at Blackfriars (Mr. Recorder Christopher Sallon Q.C. and two lay justices) dismissed an appeal by Sunworld Ltd. against their conviction in the West London Magistrates' Court on 22 December 1998 on three informations laid against them by Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council.
Sunworld are amongst the top four tour operators in the United Kingdom. The informations alleged that in their brochure, published in the autumn of 1996, advertising Greek holidays for the summer of 1997, they recklessly made false statements to Mr. John Martin in relation to certain self-catering apartments on the Greek island of Lygia, contrary to section 14(1)(b)(ii) of the
Section 14(1)(b)(ii) of the Act of 1968 provides:
It is convenient also at this stage to set out section 14(2)(b)of the Act, which provides“It shall be an offence for any person in the course of any trade or business … (b) recklessly to make a statement which is false; as to any of the following matters, that is to say … (ii) the nature of any services, accommodation or facilities provided in the course of any trade or business …”
The Crown Court found, first, that the statements in each of the informations were false, second, that they had been made without regard to their truth or falsity and accordingly were reckless within the meaning of section 14(2)(b) and, third, that Mr. Alan James, Sunworld's brochure information manager who had devised the system for ensuring brochure accuracy, was part of the company's controlling mind so as to...“For the purposes of this section … (b) a statement made regardless of whether it is true or false shall be deemed to be made recklessly, whether or not the person making it had reasons for believing that it might be false.”
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R Sanghera v Birmingham Magistrates' Court
...commitment. In these circumstances, the approach to be followed is that set out in R. v. Blackfriars Crown Court, ex parte Sunworld Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 2102 at 2106: “(1) Where a court, be it a Magistrates' Court or a Crown Court, refuses to state a case, then the party aggrieved should withou......
-
R Arthur v Crown Court at Blackfriars
...of case stated. The approach to be followed in these circumstances is set out in R v Blackfriars Crown Court ex parte Sunworld Limited [2000] 1 WLR 2102 at 2106: “(1) Where a court, be it a Magistrates' Court or a Crown Court, refuses to state a case, then the party aggrieved should without......
-
R M White Ltd and Another v Crown Court at Sheffield
...this court to the Crown Court. I must have regard to the decision of the Divisional Court in Sun World Ltd v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [2000] 1 WLR 2102. The Crown Court there had refused to state a case. Simon Brown LJ (as he then was) said this at page 2106F-2107B: "(1) Where a court, be......
-
Rockall v Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
...and which is not objected to in consequence, by the decision in Sunworld Ltd v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [2000] 1 WLR 2102. The issues therefore before this court are whether it is arguable that the court's decision on the date of notice was irrational and whether it is ......