Wig interpretation
NOW that Mr Justice Cocklecarrot has hung up his wig, we have to get our laughs from the run of the mill Law Reports, and I must say that they approach Beachcomer standards. Here for Bank holiday reading are the House of Lords judgments in Hazel! v London Borough of Hammers- mith and Fulham, and the Court of Appeal on City Index v Leslie. If they are both of them right, I am Count Nicholas Tolstoy. The Hammersmith case dealt with swaps — financial deals whose results depend on the course of interest rates. The Lords ruled that Hammersmith, which had made them and lost, did not have to pay. Tor the banks', said Lord Lampteman, 'it was argued that swap agreements are akin to insurance which enables provision to be
made for possible risks. A swap contract . . . is more akin to gambling than insur- ance.' The City Index case dealt with index bets — financial deals whose results de- pend on the course of the stock market. The Court ruled that Mr Leslie, who had made them and lost, did have to pay. 'The suggestion', said Lord Justice McCowan, `that if you dress up a bet as a hedging operation it is all right, but if you frankly call it a bet it is unacceptable, is very unattractive.' I feel sorry for Miss Eli- zabeth Gloster QC, who found herself on the losing side of both cases but every lawyer in town stands to gain from the five years of litigation which is expected to follow the Hammersmith judgment. As for Mr Leslie, he should have tried presenting himself as a town councillor, or (vide Cocklecarrot, J., obiter) as a red-bearded dwarf.
Previous page
