swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Northern Ireland - From: 1991 To: 1991
This page lists 3 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Attorney General's Reference No. 1 of 1991 [1991] NI 218
1991
CANI
Hutton LCJ
Northern Ireland, Criminal Sentencing
The court discussed the use of concurrent sentences: "we do not consider that there is a principle that a trial judge necessarily errs if he imposes concurrent and not consecutive sentences. Moreover, we consider that in Northern Ireland concurrent sentences are imposed more frequently than in England. We are of opinion that it would be undesirable in this jurisdiction to limit the discretion of the trial judge as to whether he should impose concurrent or consecutive sentence. The over-riding concern must be that the total global sentence, whether made up of concurrent or consecutive sentences, must be appropriate. In some cases a judge may achieve this result more satisfactorily by imposing consecutive sentences. In other cases he may achieve it more satisfactorily by imposing concurrent sentences . . We stress that, whether the sentences are concurrent or consecutive, the over-riding and important consideration is that the total global sentence should be just and appropriate."
1 Citers
Scally v Southern Health and Social Services Board [1991] 4 All ER 563; [1992] 1 AC 294; [1991] IRLR 525
1991
HL
Lord Bridge
Northern Ireland, Health Professions, Contract, Damages, Employment
The plaintiffs were junior doctors employed by the respondents. Their terms had been collectively negotiated, and incorporated the Regulations. During the period of their employment different regulations had given and then taken way their right to purchase additional superannuation contributions. They had not been told of the rights and had failed to exercise them. They claimed damages for breach of contract and of statutory duty. Held: The term was valuable and not negotiated with the plaintiffs. The defendants had a duty to bring the new rights to their attention. "If a duty of the kind in question is not inherent in the contractual relationship, I do not see how it could possibly be derived from the tort of negligence." The claims were not time barred because the obligation to inform had been continuing.
Contracts of Employment and Redundancy Payments Act (Northern Ireland) 1965 4(1) 5 - Health Services (Superannuation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1962 (1962 (NI) 237) - Health Services (Superannuation) (Amendment) (Number 3) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1974 (1974 (NI) 327)
1 Citers
Doherty (suing as personal representative of Daniel Doherty deceased) v Ministry of Defence Unreported, 5 February 1991
5 Feb 1991
CANI
Sir Brian Hutton CJ, Higgins J
Litigation Practice, Northern Ireland
In a civil action against army personnel, the defendant ministry applied that military witnesses should be screened while giving evidence so as to protect their identities. They were also to be identified by letters, not names, but the claimant raised no objection to that. Held: The evidence to be given by these military witnesses would be "directly detrimental to the plaintiff's case", and the claimant must not lose the advantage of being able to cross examine them face to face.
Sir Brian Hutton CJ said: "I think it appropriate to observe that, in my opinion, counsel for the Ministry in his submissions accorded insufficient recognition to the importance of counsel being able to cross-examine, face to face, an important witness giving evidence on a vital issue in dispute between the parties. Where issues are in dispute between the parties unimpeded cross-examination plays a vital part in the trial and gives vital assistance to the due administration of justice. I consider that counsel would be impeded in the cross-examination of a witness, whose evidence he wished to challenge, if he could not see his face fully, and I find it difficult to envisage circumstances in which the interests of justice would require that the face of a vital witness giving evidence on an important matter in dispute should be screened from counsel cross-examining him."
Higgins J said: "Mr Kerr in his submission on behalf of the Ministry of Defence questioned the importance of a lawyer appearing in a trial being able to see the witnesses for the opposing side give evidence, even when their evidence is crucial and disputed. I think that in a contested case it is essential that the lawyer for one party should be able to see the demeanour of each witness, called by the other side to give evidence of any importance; to prevent him from viewing such a witness would be a hindrance to his cross-examination.
The exposure of witnesses, even when giving uncontroversial evidence, to the view of the lawyers in the case has been the invariable practice in the common law system of administering justice. It has been one of the features which has contributed to the maintenance of public confidence in the administration of justice. To depart from it in any circumstance, unless there has been consent, would, I consider, diminish public confidence.
The Ministry is seeking to have four witnesses at the trial of this case screened from the sight of all but the trial judge. Those witnesses would be giving evidence in support of the defence of reasonable force, which is likely to be challenged strongly. It is my opinion that to permit, for no matter how compelling a reason, any of those witnesses to be cut off, while in the witness-box, from the view of the plaintiff's lawyers, would be an unacceptable departure from the fundamental principles which govern the conduct of trials throughout the United Kingdom."
1 Citers