Damages


Assault and battery - judge awarding aggravated damages for injury to feelings - compensation for injury to feelings to be accounted for in general damages award



Richardson v Howie: CA (Lords Justice Thomas and Jacob):13 August 2004



The claimant sought, among other things, damages for assault and battery. The judge awarded a sum of £10,000 including £5,000 for aggravated damages in respect of injury to the defendant's feelings arising from the assault. The defendant appealed against the aggravated damages award.


Bernard O Sullivan (instructed by Holden & Co, Hastings) for the claimant; Geraint Jones QC (instructed by Osler Donegan Taylor, Brighton) for the defendant.


Held, allowing the appeal, that it was no longer appropriate in an assault case to characterise an award for injury to feelings as aggravated damages except in a wholly exceptional case; that a court should bring the element of compensation for injury to feelings into account as part of general damages; that where there was an assault, the victim would be entitled to be compensated for any injury to his or her feelings, including the anger and indignation aroused; that if the injury to feelings was heightened by the malicious or spiteful nature of the attack or the motive of the assailant, the victim had to be properly compensated for that; that damages which provided such compensation should be characterised and awarded therefore as ordinary general damages which they truly were; that the circumstances of the case were not such as to be exceptional; and that, accordingly, an award of £4,500 general damages, including compensation for injured feelings, would be substituted for the £10,000 awarded by the judge.



Immigration



Deportation order against Kenyan national convicted of serious offences - adjudicator finding compassionate circumstances of case outweighing public interest that he be deported - adjudicator wrong not to take proper account of home secretary's view as to public interest



R(N) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA (Lords Justice Judge, May and Sedley): 5 August 2004


The claimant was a prisoner of Kenyan citizenship who had been convicted of serious offences including rape and threats to kill. The secretary of state made a deportation order against him.


Deportation: balance of public interest and case circumstances
An adjudicator allowed his appeal against the order. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal upheld the secretary of state's appeal. The claimant appealed on the grounds of breach of his rights under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.


Andrew Nicol QC and Frances Webber (instructed by Luqmani Thompson, London) for the claimant; Monica Carss-Frisk QC and Samantha Broadfoot (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the secretary of state.


Held, dismissing the appeal by majority, that an adjudicator, assessing whether a deportation order in respect of a foreign national who had been convicted of serious crimes should stand, had to balance the public interest against the compassionate circumstances of the case; that the public interest side of the balance would include the public policy need to deter and express society's revulsion at the seriousness of the criminality; that it was for the adjudicator to weigh all relevant factors but he was no better able to judge the public interest factor than was the court; that in the first instance, the public interest factor was a matter for the secretary of state and the adjudicator should then take proper account of his view; that the risk of further offending or potential danger was relevant to the deportation issue; but that, even if the risk had significantly diminished, the nature of the relevant offences continued to require close consideration; and that, in the circumstances, the adjudicator had been wrong to overturn the deportation order.



Taxation



Value added tax - educational charity supplying educational services and printed material for home study - supply of books separate from supply of educational services giving rise to entitlement to claim input tax



College of Estate Management v Customs and Excise Commissioners: CA (Lords Justice Ward and Jacob and Sir Charles Mantell): 11 August 2004


The college provided distance-taught courses to students, providing all necessary materials to enable them to pass their examinations. The supply of education and related services were exempt supplies and the supply of books was zero rated under schedules 8 and 9 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994. In both cases, a supplier was not required to account for tax on supplies but zero-rated supplies gave entitlement to claim input tax. The judge held that the college's supply of books was ancillary to, and part of, an exempt supply and did not allow it to claim input tax on its production costs. The college appealed.


Michael Sherry and Louise Rippon (instructed by Thomas Eggar, London) for the college; Hugh McKay (instructed by the Solicitor, Customs and Excise) for the commissioners.


Held, allowing the appeal, that the single issue was whether there was a separate supply by the college to its students of books or whether that supply was subsumed within a single supply of education; that, applying principles established in Card Protection Plan Ltd v Customs and Excise Comrs (Case C-349/96) [1999] 2 AC 601, and considering the matter overall, the only proper conclusion was that the supply of books was sufficiently coherent, distinct and independent to constitute an aim in itself; and that, accordingly, the supply was to be treated separately from the exempt supply of education, entitling the college to claim input tax on its production costs.



The law reports are prepared by the reporters to the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales; telephone: 020 7242 6471; fax: 020 7831 5247; http://www.lawreports.co.uk