PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 74976/01) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a United Kingdom national, Mr Nigel Eastaway (“the applicant”), on 3 August 2001.

The applicant was represented by Ms K. Mottee, a lawyer practising in London. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr D. Walton, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

The applicant alleged that there had been a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time.

The application was allocated to the Fourth Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1.

By a decision of 18 November 2003, the Court declared the application admissible.

The Chamber having decided, after consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 § 3 in fine), the parties replied in writing to each other’s observations.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Bishops Stortford, Hertfordshire.

A. The commencement of the disqualification proceedings and the strike-out application

The Blackspur group of companies (collectively, “Blackspur”), was formed by the applicant and others in September 1987 and at various times the applicant acted as director. Blackspur went into receivership in July 1990 with an estimated deficit of GBP 34 million.

On 1 July 1992, on the last day of the applicable two year limitation period, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (“the Secretary of State”) issued proceedings against the applicant and four others (“the Blackspur proceedings”) under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (“the CDDA”: see below).

The Secretary of State’s evidence was not complete at the time he commenced proceedings, and he applied for an extension of time for the serving of evidence (see below). The defendants refused to consent to an extension being granted and instead, on 13 October 1992, three of the defendants (but not, at this stage, the applicant) applied to strike out the proceedings.

The Secretary of State’s evidence was completed and served on the applicant on 14 December 1992. On 13 May 1993 the applicant applied to strike out the proceedings. The Secretary of State’s application for permission to file the evidence out of time, and the cross-application to strike out the proceedings by the applicant and other defendants, were heard by the Registrar on 20 May 1993, when they were adjourned to 29 July 1993. On 27 January 1994 the Registrar granted the Secretary of State’s application for an extension of time and dismissed the strike-out application. Two of the applicant’s co-defendants appealed to the High Court. On 12 April 1995 the applicant also lodged an appeal.

B. Criminal proceedings

Related criminal charges had been brought against the applicant and three other defendants in the Blackspur proceedings on 1 July 1992. In May 1993 the applicant and other defendants had applied to stay the disqualification proceedings pending the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. The criminal trial took place between March and June 1994, during which period the disqualification proceedings were adjourned generally, with liberty to restore. At the conclusion of the criminal trial, the applicant and one other defendant were acquitted, and two defendants were convicted. On appeal, the two convictions were quashed in February 1995.

By a letter dated 16 September 1994 the applicant invited the Secretary of State to reconsider whether, in the light of the acquittals in the criminal trial, it was in the public interest to carry on with the disqualification proceedings. On 15 December 1994 the Treasury Solicitor replied that the Secretary of State had decided that it remained expedient in the public interest to continue.

C. The strike-out and disqualification proceedings resumed

Once the criminal trial had been concluded, the appeal to the High Court brought by the first defendant to the disqualification proceeding, Mr Davies, against the Registrar’s decision of 27 January 1994, could proceed and was dismissed on 2 May 1995. In November 1995 Mr Davies was granted leave to appeal out of time to the Court of Appeal, and his substantive appeal was dismissed by that court on 24 May 1996. The Court of Appeal found that the reasons for the Secretary of State’s failure to complete his evidence before the proceedings were commenced had been “far from satisfactory”, but considered nonetheless that the case should proceed since it was in the public interest to determine the “particularly serious” allegations of false accounting and trading while insolvent made against the defendants. In addition, the court observed that the delay by the Secretary of State had not affected the timing of the hearing or prejudiced the applicant, and that, once the proceedings had commenced, “the respondents’ main concern was to delay the proceedings until after the conclusion of the criminal trial, not to hurry them on”.

On 1 July 1996 the Registrar directed that the defendants should serve their evidence in response to that of the Secretary of State by 29 November 1996.

On 18 November 1996 the applicant wrote to the Secretary of State offering to settle the case by giving an undertaking not to act as a company director in the future. The Secretary of State refused to settle the case on that basis, insisting instead on a “Carecraft” settlement. This procedure, named after the case of Re Carecraft Construction Co. Ltd [1994] 1 WLR 172, allows the parties to proceedings under the CDDA to submit to the court an agreement that a disqualification order should be made for a specified period on the basis of undisputed (but not necessarily agreed) facts.

On 9 December 1996 the Registrar ordered that if the defendants had not served their evidence by 17 January 1997, they would be debarred from adducing any evidence.

The defendants served their evidence on 17 January 1997. On 20 January 1997 the Registrar directed that the Secretary of State should serve his evidence in reply by 17 March 1997. On 14 April 1997 the Registrar granted the Secretary of State a time-extension for the serving of evidence in reply until 30 June 1997, and this evidence was in fact served on 10 July 1997. At a further directions hearing on 4 August 1997 the defendants were given permission to adduce additional evidence in rejoinder by 1 December 1997. The defendants failed to comply with this order and on 8 December 1997 they were granted an extension of time until 9 February 1998.

On 30 January 1998 the applicant asked the Secretary of State to reconsider the continuance of the disqualification proceedings against him. On 6 February 1998 the Secretary of State informed the applicant that he intended to continue. On 9 February 1998 there was a further directions hearing, when the applicant was ordered to serve further evidence by 9 March 1998.

On 17 February 1998 the applicant’s solicitors informed the Secretary of State’s solicitor that the applicant was willing to negotiate a “Carecraft” settlement. On 5 March 1998 the Secretary of State replied that he would accept a settlement based on a disqualification period of five years.

In the light of these negotiations, at a directions hearing on 23 March 1998, the time-limit for the applicant’s further evidence was extended indefinitely.

On 17 June 1998 the Secretary of State’s solicitor sent a draft “Carecraft” statement. On 30 July 1998 the parties met to discuss it, and a revised statement was prepared. On 4 October 1998 the applicant broke off the settlement negotiations

On 8 December 1998 the matter was set down for trial on 4 October 1999.

On 23 April 1999 the applicant’s solicitors again wrote to the Secretary of State asking him to discontinue the proceedings, on the ground that they had already exceeded the “reasonable time” provision in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. On 30 June 1999 the Secretary of State informed the applicant that he had decided not to discontinue them.

Meanwhile, on 10 June 1999 the applicant contacted the Secretary of State to resume negotiations on the “Carecraft” settlement.

On 29 July 1999 there was a pre-trial review in the disqualification proceedings, at which the court gave detailed trial directions. The trial was set down to begin on 4 October 1999.

D. Judicial review

On 18 August 1999 the applicant applied for judicial review of the legality of the Secretary of State’s decision of 30 June 1999, not to discontinue the proceedings on grounds of delay.

On 13 September 1999 the applicant agreed that he would sign the “Carecraft” statement if he failed in the judicial review proceedings. The disqualification proceedings were adjourned.

On 15 September 1999 the application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused. On 27 January 2000, following an oral hearing, leave was again refused.

On 2 February 2000, the applicant renewed his judicial review application before the Court of Appeal. It was refused by the Court of Appeal on 15 March 2000, following an oral hearing. In the course of a considered judgment, Lord Justice Buxton described the application as “misconceived”, because the arguments on delay could, and should, have been made in the course of the disqualification proceedings and not in separate proceedings for judicial review. On 23 March 2000 Buxton LJ refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords.

The applicant appealed to the House of Lords, which granted leave on 11 July 2000. The House heard the applicant’s appeal on 18 October 2000, and on 2 November 2000 delivered judgment dismissing it on the grounds that the House had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal refusing leave to apply for judicial review (R v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, ex parte Eastaway [2000] 1 WLR 2222).

On 6 November 2000 the Secretary of State wrote to the applicant indicating that he wished to fix a hearing at which the “Carecraft” order could be made.

E. Proceedings under the Human Rights Act

The Human Rights Act 1998 came into force on 2 October 2000, and on 10 November 2000 the applicant issued an application in the Companies Court to strike out or dismiss the disqualification proceedings on the ground of violation of the reasonable time provision in Article 6 § 1.

The application was heard by the Vice-Chancellor on 7 February 2001, and judgment was delivered dismissing it on 15 February 2001, because the Vice-Chancellor did not find a violation of Article 6 § 1 (Re Blackspur Group plc and Others; Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v. Eastaway and Others [2001] 1 BCLC 653). The Vice-Chancellor held, inter alia: “It is true that the events in question occurred over ten years ago. It is also true that eight and a half years have now elapsed since the proceedings were commenced. In those circumstances it is necessary to look critically at the events of the intervening period to determine whether more than a reasonable time has elapsed so as to constitute an infringement of Mr Eastaway’s Convention rights. In my view most of the time elapsed is to be attributed either to the requirements of justice down to the conclusion of the criminal proceedings in June 1994 or to the conduct of Mr Eastaway. Such conduct includes the attempt to strike out the proceedings concluded in May 1996; Mr Davies’ unsuccessful attempt, with which Mr Eastaway was associated, from October 1996 to November 1997 to have the proceedings stayed; the negotiations for a summary disposal under the Carecraft procedure from February to October 1998; the renewed attempts for that purpose between June and September 1999 and Mr Eastaway’s unsuccessful attempts between August 1999 and November 2000 to obtain a judicial review of the decision of the Secretary of State to continue. In the judgments of the Court of Appeal given in November 1997 in Re Blackspur Group [1998] 1 WLR 422, 427H and 433B it was recorded that Mr Davies did not suggest then that a fair trial was impossible. Mr Eastaway does not now suggest that the delay has been such that a fair trial is impossible. A very large proportion of the undoubtedly long time which has elapsed since these proceedings were commenced is due to the various actions taken by Mr Eastaway. Those actions were taken not to obtain but to avoid a fair and public hearing by an independent or impartial tribunal either within a reasonable time or at all. In my view there has been no breach of Mr Eastaway’s Convention rights under Article 6 and for the Secretary of State now to proceed with these proceedings would not be incompatible with them.”

The Vice-Chancellor refused leave to appeal, so the applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which also refused leave. The applicant renewed his application at an oral hearing on 6 April 2001, at which the Court of Appeal again refused leave to appeal, on the basis that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1.

F. Further proceedings

On 8 March 2001 the applicant issued a further action for a declaration that the continuation of the disqualification proceedings would be contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Secretary of State applied to have these proceedings struck out, on the grounds that they raised identical issues to the application dismissed by the Vice-Chancellor the previous month.

The applicant responded with three further applications. In the first, dated 9 April 2001, he sought to be released from his undertaking of 13 September 1999; in the second, on 18 April 2001, he sought a stay or dismissal of the proceedings on the grounds that the Secretary of State should now accept a far more limited undertaking from him in place of the agreed “Carecraft” statement; in the third application, issued 24 April 2001, he applied for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s refusal to accept his newly proffered undertakings.

On 23 May 2001 Patten J struck out the applicant’s new action and dismissed his further three applications. Patten J’s decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 13 September 2001.

Meanwhile, on 31 May 2001 the applicant signed an undertaking which provided for an agreed period of disqualification of four and a half years, commencing on 25 June 2001. The undertaking was accepted and the proceedings against the applicant were terminated on 4 June 2001.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e1
001-61925_a8_em1
CODE
DIRECT
74976/01
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61925_a8_e2
001-61925_a8_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e3
001-61925_a8_em3
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e4
001-61925_a8_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Nigel Eastaway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e5
001-61925_a8_em5
DATETIME
QUASI
3 August 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e6
001-61925_a8_em6
PERSON
QUASI
Ms K. Mottee
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e7
001-61925_a8_em7
LOC
NO_MASK
London
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e8
001-61925_a8_em8
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e9
001-61925_a8_em9
PERSON
QUASI
Mr D. Walton
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e10
001-61925_a8_em10
ORG
NO_MASK
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e11
001-61925_a8_em11
DATETIME
QUASI
18 November 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e12
001-61925_a8_em12
DATETIME
QUASI
1943
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61925_a8_e13
001-61925_a8_em13
LOC
QUASI
Bishops Stortford, Hertfordshire
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e14
001-61925_a8_em14
ORG
QUASI
Blackspur
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61925_a8_e14
001-61925_a8_em15
ORG
QUASI
Blackspur
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e15
001-61925_a8_em16
DATETIME
QUASI
September 1987
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61925_a8_e16
001-61925_a8_em17
DEM
NO_MASK
director
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e14
001-61925_a8_em18
ORG
QUASI
Blackspur
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e17
001-61925_a8_em19
DATETIME
QUASI
July 1990
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61925_a8_e18
001-61925_a8_em20
QUANTITY
QUASI
GBP 34 million
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e19
001-61925_a8_em21
DATETIME
QUASI
1 July 1992
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61925_a8_e20
001-61925_a8_em22
ORG
NO_MASK
001-61925_a8_em23
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61925_a8_e20
001-61925_a8_em23
ORG
NO_MASK
the Secretary of State
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61925_a8_e21
001-61925_a8_em24
MISC
QUASI
the Blackspur proceedings
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e22
001-61925_a8_em25
ORG
NO_MASK
The Secretary of State
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e23
001-61925_a8_em26
DATETIME
QUASI
13 October 1992
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e22
001-61925_a8_em27
ORG
NO_MASK
The Secretary of State
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e24
001-61925_a8_em28
DATETIME
QUASI
14 December 1992
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e25
001-61925_a8_em29
DATETIME
QUASI
13 May 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e22
001-61925_a8_em30
ORG
NO_MASK
The Secretary of State
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e26
001-61925_a8_em31
DATETIME
QUASI
20 May 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61925_a8_e27
001-61925_a8_em32
DATETIME
QUASI
29 July 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e28
001-61925_a8_em33
DATETIME
QUASI
27 January 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e20
001-61925_a8_em34
ORG
NO_MASK
the Secretary of State
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e29
001-61925_a8_em35
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e30
001-61925_a8_em36
DATETIME
QUASI
12 April 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61925_a8_e21
001-61925_a8_em37
MISC
QUASI
the Blackspur proceedings
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e19
001-61925_a8_em38
DATETIME
QUASI
1 July 1992
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e31
001-61925_a8_em39
DATETIME
QUASI
May 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61925_a8_e32
001-61925_a8_em40
DATETIME
QUASI
March and June 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e33
001-61925_a8_em41
DATETIME
QUASI
February 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e34
001-61925_a8_em42
DATETIME
QUASI
16 September 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e20
001-61925_a8_em43
ORG
NO_MASK
the Secretary of State
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e35
001-61925_a8_em44
DATETIME
QUASI
15 December 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e20
001-61925_a8_em45
ORG
NO_MASK
the Secretary of State
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e29
001-61925_a8_em46
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e36
001-61925_a8_em47
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Davies
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e28
001-61925_a8_em48
DATETIME
QUASI
27 January 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e37
001-61925_a8_em49
DATETIME
QUASI
2 May 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e38
001-61925_a8_em50
DATETIME
QUASI
November 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e36
001-61925_a8_em51
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Davies
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e39
001-61925_a8_em52
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e40
001-61925_a8_em53
DATETIME
QUASI
24 May 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e39
001-61925_a8_em54
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e20
001-61925_a8_em55
ORG
NO_MASK
the Secretary of State
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e20
001-61925_a8_em56
ORG
NO_MASK
the Secretary of State
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e41
001-61925_a8_em57
DATETIME
QUASI
1 July 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e20
001-61925_a8_em58
ORG
NO_MASK
the Secretary of State
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e42
001-61925_a8_em59
DATETIME
QUASI
29 November 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e43
001-61925_a8_em60
DATETIME
QUASI
18 November 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e20
001-61925_a8_em61
ORG
NO_MASK
the Secretary of State
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e16
001-61925_a8_em62
DEM
NO_MASK
director
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e22
001-61925_a8_em63
ORG
NO_MASK
The Secretary of State
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-61925_a8_e44
001-61925_a8_em64
ORG
QUASI
Carecraft
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-61925_a8_e45
001-61925_a8_em65
MISC
QUASI
Re Carecraft Construction Co. Ltd
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e46
001-61925_a8_em66
DATETIME
QUASI
1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61925_a8_e47
001-61925_a8_em67
MISC
QUASI
1 WLR 172
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e48
001-61925_a8_em68
DATETIME
QUASI
9 December 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e49
001-61925_a8_em69
DATETIME
QUASI
17 January 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e49
001-61925_a8_em70
DATETIME
QUASI
17 January 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e50
001-61925_a8_em71
DATETIME
QUASI
20 January 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e20
001-61925_a8_em72
ORG
NO_MASK
the Secretary of State
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e51
001-61925_a8_em73
DATETIME
QUASI
17 March 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e52
001-61925_a8_em74
DATETIME
QUASI
14 April 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e20
001-61925_a8_em75
ORG
NO_MASK
the Secretary of State
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e53
001-61925_a8_em76
DATETIME
QUASI
30 June 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e54
001-61925_a8_em77
DATETIME
QUASI
10 July 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e55
001-61925_a8_em78
DATETIME
QUASI
4 August 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e56
001-61925_a8_em79
DATETIME
QUASI
1 December 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e57
001-61925_a8_em80
DATETIME
QUASI
8 December 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e58
001-61925_a8_em81
DATETIME
QUASI
9 February 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e59
001-61925_a8_em82
DATETIME
QUASI
30 January 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e20
001-61925_a8_em83
ORG
NO_MASK
the Secretary of State
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e60
001-61925_a8_em84
DATETIME
QUASI
6 February 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e20
001-61925_a8_em85
ORG
NO_MASK
the Secretary of State
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e58
001-61925_a8_em86
DATETIME
QUASI
9 February 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e61
001-61925_a8_em87
DATETIME
QUASI
9 March 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e62
001-61925_a8_em88
DATETIME
QUASI
17 February 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e20
001-61925_a8_em89
ORG
NO_MASK
the Secretary of State
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61925_a8_e44
001-61925_a8_em90
ORG
QUASI
Carecraft
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e63
001-61925_a8_em91
DATETIME
QUASI
5 March 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e20
001-61925_a8_em92
ORG
NO_MASK
the Secretary of State
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e64
001-61925_a8_em93
DATETIME
NO_MASK
five years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e65
001-61925_a8_em94
DATETIME
QUASI
23 March 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e66
001-61925_a8_em95
DATETIME
QUASI
17 June 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e20
001-61925_a8_em96
ORG
NO_MASK
the Secretary of State
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e44
001-61925_a8_em97
ORG
QUASI
Carecraft
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e67
001-61925_a8_em98
DATETIME
QUASI
30 July 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e68
001-61925_a8_em99
DATETIME
QUASI
4 October 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e69
001-61925_a8_em100
DATETIME
QUASI
8 December 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e70
001-61925_a8_em101
DATETIME
QUASI
4 October 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e71
001-61925_a8_em102
DATETIME
QUASI
23 April 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e20
001-61925_a8_em103
ORG
NO_MASK
the Secretary of State
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e72
001-61925_a8_em104
DATETIME
QUASI
30 June 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e20
001-61925_a8_em105
ORG
NO_MASK
the Secretary of State
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e73
001-61925_a8_em106
DATETIME
QUASI
10 June 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e20
001-61925_a8_em107
ORG
NO_MASK
the Secretary of State
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-61925_a8_e44
001-61925_a8_em108
ORG
QUASI
Carecraft
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e74
001-61925_a8_em109
DATETIME
QUASI
29 July 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e70
001-61925_a8_em110
DATETIME
QUASI
4 October 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e75
001-61925_a8_em111
DATETIME
QUASI
18 August 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e20
001-61925_a8_em112
ORG
NO_MASK
the Secretary of State
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e72
001-61925_a8_em113
DATETIME
QUASI
30 June 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61925_a8_e76
001-61925_a8_em114
DATETIME
QUASI
13 September 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61925_a8_e44
001-61925_a8_em115
ORG
QUASI
Carecraft
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61925_a8_e77
001-61925_a8_em116
DATETIME
QUASI
15 September 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e78
001-61925_a8_em117
DATETIME
QUASI
27 January 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e79
001-61925_a8_em118
DATETIME
QUASI
2 February 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61925_a8_e39
001-61925_a8_em119
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e39
001-61925_a8_em120
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e80
001-61925_a8_em121
DATETIME
QUASI
15 March 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61925_a8_e81
001-61925_a8_em122
PERSON
QUASI
Lord Justice Buxton
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e82
001-61925_a8_em123
DATETIME
QUASI
23 March 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e83
001-61925_a8_em124
PERSON
QUASI
Buxton LJ
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e84
001-61925_a8_em125
ORG
NO_MASK
House of Lords
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e84
001-61925_a8_em126
ORG
NO_MASK
House of Lords
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e85
001-61925_a8_em127
DATETIME
QUASI
11 July 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e86
001-61925_a8_em128
DATETIME
QUASI
18 October 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e87
001-61925_a8_em129
DATETIME
QUASI
2 November 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e39
001-61925_a8_em130
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61925_a8_e88
001-61925_a8_em131
MISC
QUASI
R v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, ex parte Eastaway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e89
001-61925_a8_em132
DATETIME
QUASI
2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61925_a8_e90
001-61925_a8_em133
MISC
QUASI
1 WLR 2222
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e91
001-61925_a8_em134
DATETIME
QUASI
6 November 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e20
001-61925_a8_em135
ORG
NO_MASK
the Secretary of State
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e44
001-61925_a8_em136
ORG
QUASI
Carecraft
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e92
001-61925_a8_em137
DATETIME
QUASI
1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e93
001-61925_a8_em138
DATETIME
QUASI
2 October 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e94
001-61925_a8_em139
DATETIME
QUASI
10 November 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e95
001-61925_a8_em140
ORG
NO_MASK
Companies Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e96
001-61925_a8_em141
DATETIME
QUASI
7 February 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e97
001-61925_a8_em142
DATETIME
QUASI
15 February 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61925_a8_e98
001-61925_a8_em143
MISC
QUASI
Re Blackspur Group plc and Others; Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v. Eastaway and Others
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e99
001-61925_a8_em144
DATETIME
QUASI
2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61925_a8_e100
001-61925_a8_em145
MISC
QUASI
1 BCLC 653
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61925_a8_e101
001-61925_a8_em146
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
ten years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-61925_a8_e102
001-61925_a8_em147
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
eight and a half years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e103
001-61925_a8_em148
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Eastaway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e104
001-61925_a8_em149
DATETIME
QUASI
June 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e103
001-61925_a8_em150
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Eastaway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e105
001-61925_a8_em151
DATETIME
QUASI
May 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e36
001-61925_a8_em152
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Davies
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e103
001-61925_a8_em153
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Eastaway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e106
001-61925_a8_em154
DATETIME
QUASI
October 1996 to November 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e44
001-61925_a8_em155
ORG
QUASI
Carecraft
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e107
001-61925_a8_em156
DATETIME
QUASI
February to October 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61925_a8_e108
001-61925_a8_em157
DATETIME
QUASI
June and September 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e103
001-61925_a8_em158
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Eastaway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61925_a8_e109
001-61925_a8_em159
DATETIME
QUASI
August 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e110
001-61925_a8_em160
DATETIME
QUASI
November 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e20
001-61925_a8_em161
ORG
NO_MASK
the Secretary of State
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e39
001-61925_a8_em162
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e111
001-61925_a8_em163
DATETIME
QUASI
November 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e112
001-61925_a8_em164
ORG
QUASI
Re Blackspur Group
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e92
001-61925_a8_em165
DATETIME
QUASI
1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61925_a8_e113
001-61925_a8_em166
MISC
QUASI
1 WLR 422
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61925_a8_e114
001-61925_a8_em167
MISC
QUASI
427H
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61925_a8_e115
001-61925_a8_em168
MISC
QUASI
433B
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e36
001-61925_a8_em169
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Davies
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e103
001-61925_a8_em170
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Eastaway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e103
001-61925_a8_em171
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Eastaway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e103
001-61925_a8_em172
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Eastaway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e20
001-61925_a8_em173
ORG
NO_MASK
the Secretary of State
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e39
001-61925_a8_em174
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e116
001-61925_a8_em175
DATETIME
QUASI
6 April 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e39
001-61925_a8_em176
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e117
001-61925_a8_em177
DATETIME
QUASI
8 March 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e22
001-61925_a8_em178
ORG
NO_MASK
The Secretary of State
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e118
001-61925_a8_em179
DATETIME
QUASI
9 April 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e76
001-61925_a8_em180
DATETIME
QUASI
13 September 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e119
001-61925_a8_em181
DATETIME
QUASI
18 April 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e20
001-61925_a8_em182
ORG
NO_MASK
the Secretary of State
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e44
001-61925_a8_em183
ORG
QUASI
Carecraft
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e120
001-61925_a8_em184
DATETIME
QUASI
24 April 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e20
001-61925_a8_em185
ORG
NO_MASK
the Secretary of State
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e121
001-61925_a8_em186
DATETIME
QUASI
23 May 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61925_a8_e122
001-61925_a8_em187
PERSON
QUASI
Patten J
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61925_a8_e122
001-61925_a8_em188
PERSON
QUASI
Patten J
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e39
001-61925_a8_em189
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e123
001-61925_a8_em190
DATETIME
QUASI
13 September 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e124
001-61925_a8_em191
DATETIME
QUASI
31 May 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e125
001-61925_a8_em192
DATETIME
QUASI
four and a half years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e126
001-61925_a8_em193
DATETIME
QUASI
25 June 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61925_a8_e127
001-61925_a8_em194
DATETIME
QUASI
4 June 2001
Nigel Eastaway
GBR
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Nigel Eastaway