Staughton LJ considered the interpretation of an Act of Parliament to give it reprospective powers: ‘In my judgment the true principle is that Parliament is presumed not to have intended to alter the law applicable to past events and transactions in a manner which is unfair to those concerned in them, unless a contrary intention appears. It is not simply a question of classifying an enactment as retrospective or not retrospective. Rather it may well be a matter of degree – the greater the unfairness, the more it is to be expected that Parliament will make it clear if that is intended.’
Court: CADate: 01-Jan-1991
Judges: Staughton LJ
References: [1991] 2 All ER 712,
Cited By:
- Wilson and others -v- Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson -v- First County Trust Ltd (No 2), HL, Cited, (House of Lords, Gazette 18-Sep-03, Times 11-Jul-03, Bailii, [2003] UKHL 40, [2003] 3 WLR 568, [2004] 1 AC 816, [2003] 2 All ER (Comm) 491, [2003] HRLR 33, [2003] UKHRR 1085, [2003] 4 All ER 97)
- Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change -v- Friends of The Earth and Others, CA, Cited, (Bailii, [2012] EWCA Civ 28)
