Peter Blad was holder of a patent of monopoly from the King of Denmark to trade in Iceland, then a Danish possession. Bamfield was an Englishman whose property was seized on the high seas in 1668 by the authority of the Danish Crown and forfeited by the Danish courts, on the ground that he had been fishing off Iceland in breach of the monopoly. Some years later, Blad made the mistake of visiting England. Bamfield sued him at law, contending that the monopoly was illegal and invalid since it was contrary to a right to trade which had in practice been recognised by Denmark for 50 years before the seizure. Blad contended that he could not be liable because the seizure was an act of state. He initially complained to the Privy Council on the ground that as an act of state it was susceptible of relief only by diplomatic means.
Held: Perpetual injunction to restrain proceedings against a Dane, for the seizure of property of English subjects in Iceland, the seizure being sanctioned by the Danish authorities.
Bamfield contended that reliance on the Danish letters patent was precluded by the terms of the Anglo-Danish commercial treaty of 1670. This, Nottingham LC said, made all the difference: ‘it is very true that this cause was dismissed from the council board being not looked on there as a case of state, because for aught appeared to them, it might be a private injury, and unwarrantable, and so fit to be left to a legal discussion. But now the very manner of the defence offered by the defendant had made it directly a case of state; for they insist upon the articles of peace to justify their commerce, which is of vast consequence to the public; for every misinterpretation of an article may be the unhappy occasion of a war.’
Nottingham restrained Bamfield’s action at law on the ground that: ‘to send it to a trial at law, where either the court must pretend to judge of the validity of the King’s letters patent in Denmark or of the exposition and meaning of the articles of peace; or that a common jury should try whether the English have a right to trade in Iceland, is monstrous and absurd.’
Judges:
Lord Chancellor Nottingham
Citations:
[1674] EngR 113, (1674) 3 Swans 604, (1674) 36 ER 992
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Belhaj and Another v Straw and Others SC 17-Jan-2017
The claimant alleged complicity by the defendant, (now former) Foreign Secretary, in his mistreatment by the US while held in Libya. He also alleged involvement in his unlawful abduction and removal to Libya, from which had had fled for political . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Torts – Other, International
Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.406112
