§ 3. Mr. Finlayasked the Attorney-General what action he proposes to take in view of the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Morelle, Limited v. Wakeling.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralMy right hon. and learned Friend has instituted proceedings in which it is hoped to test the validity of the decisions of the Court of Appeal in both Morelle, Limited v. Waterworth and Morelle, Limited v. Wakeling.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Lipton rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerIt appears from the answer that this matter is sub judice.
§ Lieut.-Colonel LiptonI want to ask a supplementary on the Question which has just been answered.
§ Mr. SpeakerFrom the answer, I gather that the matter is sub judice at the moment.
§ Lieut.-Colonel LiptonI am not attempting to raise the sub judice aspect of it but to ask the Solicitor-General whether he is aware that Mr. Wakeling, who is one of my constituents, although he has been successful twice in the Court of Appeal, is being asked by the legal aid department to pay no less a sum than £80 towards the cost of this action? He has been successful on both occasions. Will the Solicitor-General look into the matter to see whether the claim is justified?
§ The Solicitor-GeneralThat would appear to be a Question far away from the one on the Order Paper.