JOURNALS HOUSE OF LORDS - United Kingdom Parliament

26 1st December
2004
PRAYERS were read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.
1. Barony of Abinger in the Peerage of the United Kingdom—The Petition of James Harry Scarlett
claiming to have succeeded to the Barony of Abinger in the Peerage of the United Kingdom
and praying that the Clerk of the Parliaments might be directed to enter the petitioner as the
Lord Abinger on his register of hereditary peers maintained under Standing Order 10(5) was
presented and was referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report upon to the House
pursuant to Standing Order 11.
2. Viscountcy of Oxfuird in the Peerage of Scotland—The Lord Chancellor reported that Ian
Alexander Arthur Makgill had established his succession to the Viscountcy of Oxfuird. The
Clerk of the Parliaments was accordingly directed to enter the Viscount of Oxfuird on the
register of hereditary peers maintained under Standing Order 10(5).
Judicial Business
3. Regina v. Smith (Appellant) (2004) (No. 2) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal
Division))—The appeal was set down for hearing and referred to an Appellate Committee.
4. Autologic Holdings plc and others (Respondents) v. Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Inland
Revenue (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 13th
January 2005 (the agents for the respondents consenting thereto) was presented; and it was
ordered as prayed.
5. BNP Paribas UK Holdings Limited and others (Respondents) v. Her Majesty’s Commissioners of
Inland Revenue (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 13th
January 2005 (the agents for the respondents consenting thereto) was presented; and it was
ordered as prayed.
6. The Future Network plc and others (Respondents) v. Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Inland
Revenue (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 13th
January 2005 (the agents for the respondents consenting thereto) was presented; and it was
ordered as prayed.
7. Perkins Engines Company Limited and others (Respondents) v. Her Majesty’s Commissioners of
Inland Revenue (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 13th
January 2005 (the agents for the respondents consenting thereto) was presented; and it was
ordered as prayed.
8. HJ Heinz Company Inc and others (Respondents) v. Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Inland
Revenue (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 13th
January 2005 (the agents for the respondents consenting thereto) was presented; and it was
ordered as prayed.
9. British Telecommunications plc and others (Respondents) v. Her Majesty’s Commissioners of
Inland Revenue (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 13th
January 2005 (the agents for the respondents consenting thereto) was presented; and it was
ordered as prayed.
10. Appeal Committee—The 5th Report from the Appeal Committee was agreed to and the following
Orders were made—
Serco Limited (Respondents) v. Lawson (Appellant)—That the petition of the Foreign and
Commonwealth OYce that they might be heard or otherwise intervene in the said appeal be
allowed.
AE (FC) and another (Appellants) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Respondent)—That the petition of the OYce of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees that they might be heard or otherwise intervene in the said appeal be allowed.
11. Appeal Committee—The 6th Report from the Appeal Committee was agreed to and the following
Orders were made—
Mahajan (Petitioner) v. Department for Constitutional AVairs (Respondents)—That leave to
appeal be refused.
R (on the application of Mahajan) (Applicant) v. Central London County Court
(Respondents) (First application)—That leave to appeal be refused.
R (on the application of Mahajan) (Applicant) v. Central London County Court
(Respondents) (Second application)—That leave to appeal be refused.
R (on the application of Mahajan) (Applicant) v. Central London County Court
(Respondents) (Third application)—That leave to appeal be refused.