The Queen in Right of Alberta v Canadian Transport Commission: 1977

The Crown in right of Alberta may be equated with the Government of Alberta.

Citations:

(1977) 75 DLR (3d) 257

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte Quark Fishing Limited HL 13-Oct-2005
The applicant had previously received licences to fish for Patagonian Toothfish off South Georgia. The defendant had instructed the issuer of the licence in such a way that it was not renewed. It now had to establish that its article 1 rights had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Constitutional

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.231158

Rex v Lord Abingdon: 1794

A Member of Parliament chose to have his earlier speech in the House re-published ‘under his authority and sanction . . and at his expense’.
Held: Statements made outside Parliament are not protected by absolute privilege even if they simply repeat what was said therein.

Citations:

(1794) 1 Esp 226, (1794) 170 ER 337

Cited by:

CitedJennings v Buchanan PC 14-Jul-2004
(New Zealand) (Attorney General of New Zealand intervening) The defendant MP had made a statement in Parliament which attracted parliamentary privilege. In a subsequent newspaper interview, he said ‘he did not resile from his claim’. He defended the . .
CitedChaytor and Others, Regina v SC 1-Dec-2010
The defendants faced trial on charges of false accounting in connection in different ways with their expenses claims whilst serving as members of the House of Commons. They appealed against rejection of their assertion that the court had no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.199241

Rex v Creevey Esq MP: 1813

A statement made out of Parliament is not to be protected by its absolute privilege even if what is said simply repeats what was said inside the House.
A member of the House of Commons may be convicted upon an indictment for a libel in publishing in a newspaper the report of a speech delivered by him in that House, if it contain libellous matter, although the publication be a correct report of such speech, and be made in consequence of an incorrect publication having appeared in that and other newspapers.

Citations:

(1813) 1 M and S 273, (1813) 105 ER 102, [1813] EngR 254

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

CitedJennings v Buchanan PC 14-Jul-2004
(New Zealand) (Attorney General of New Zealand intervening) The defendant MP had made a statement in Parliament which attracted parliamentary privilege. In a subsequent newspaper interview, he said ‘he did not resile from his claim’. He defended the . .
CitedChaytor and Others, Regina v SC 1-Dec-2010
The defendants faced trial on charges of false accounting in connection in different ways with their expenses claims whilst serving as members of the House of Commons. They appealed against rejection of their assertion that the court had no . .
CitedMakudi v Baron Triesman of Tottenham CA 26-Feb-2014
Appeal against strike out of claims for defamation and malicious falsehood. The defendant had given evidence to the Culture Media and Sport Select Committee of the House of Commons with material highly critical of the claimant, a member of FIFA’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.199242

Riel v The Queen: PC 1885

A power given to a Parliament to ‘make laws for the peace, order and good government’ is ‘apt to authorize the utmost discretion of enactment for the attainment of the objects pointed to’

Citations:

(1885) 10 App Cas 675

Cited by:

CitedHaroon Khan v The State PC 20-Nov-2003
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant had been convicted of felony murder. He was one of four engaged in a robbery, where the victim received fatal injuries.
Held: The felony murder rule had been . .
CitedBancoult, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimants challenged the 2004 Order which prevented their return to their homes on the Chagos Islands. The islanders had been taken off the island to leave it for use as a US airbase. In 2004, the island was no longer needed, and payment had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.188593

Rothermere v Times Newspapers Ltd: CA 1973

The court considered whether to order a defamation trial to be heard by judge alone, rather than before a jury.
Held: The criterion that the trial requires a prolonged examination of documents is basic and must be strictly satisfied, and it is not enough merely to show that the trial will be long and complicated.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘Looking back on our history, I hold that, if a newspaper has criticised in its columns the great and the powerful on a matter of large public interest — and is then charged with libel — then its guilt or innocence should be tried with a jury, if the newspaper asks for it, even though it requires the prolonged examination of documents.’ and ‘the right given by our constitution to a Defendant who is charged with libel, either in criminal or civil proceedings. Every Defendant has a constitutional right to have his guilt or innocence determined by a jury. This right is of the highest importance, especially when the Defendant has ventured to criticise the government of the day, or those who hold authority or power in the state’.

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1973] 1 WLR 448

Statutes:

Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933

Cited by:

CitedRight Hon Aitken MP and Preston; Pallister and Guardian Newspapers Ltd CA 15-May-1997
The defendants appealed against an order that a defamation trial should proced before a judge alone.
Held: ‘Where the parties, or one of them, is a public figure, or there are matters of national interest in question, this would suggest the . .
CitedJoyce v Sengupta and Another CA 31-Jul-1992
The defendant published an article accusing the plaintiff of theft. Not having funds to launch a claim in libel, the plaintiff obtained legal aid to claim in malicious falsehood. She now appealed against a strike out of that claim.
Held: A . .
CitedCook v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 29-Mar-2011
The claimant, an MP, complained in defamation of the defendant’s description of his rejected expenses claim regarding an assistant’s charitable donation. The paper pleaded a Reynolds defence. The claimant said that when published the defendant knew . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice, Constitutional

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.184760

Ibralebbe v The Queen: PC 1964

(Grenada) In an appeal from the Court of Appeal of Grenada, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council forms part of the Grenadian judicial system. Section 53 of the constitution which empowered Parliament to ‘make laws for the peace, order and good government’, connoted ‘the widest law-making powers appropriate to a Sovereign’

Citations:

[1964] AC 900

Cited by:

CitedDonovan Crawford Regardless Limited Alma Crawford v Financial Institutions Services Limited PC 19-Jun-2003
PC (Jamaica) The petitioners sought leave to appeal to the Privy Council. They had an appeal as of right. They now sought special leave, complaining that the Court in Jamaca had granted leave subject to them . .
CitedHaroon Khan v The State PC 20-Nov-2003
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant had been convicted of felony murder. He was one of four engaged in a robbery, where the victim received fatal injuries.
Held: The felony murder rule had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Constitutional

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.184494

Maxwell v Murphy: 1957

Sir Owen Dixon CJ said: ‘The general rule of the common law is that a statute changing the law ought not, unless the intention appears with reasonable certainty, to be understood as applying to facts or events that have already occurred in such a way as to confer or impose or otherwise affect rights or liabilities which the law had defined by reference to the past events.’ and ‘A cause of action which can be enforced is a very different thing to a cause of action the remedy for which is barred by lapse of time. Statutes which enable a person to enforce a cause of action which was then barred or provide a bar to an existing cause of action by abridging the time for its institution could hardly be described as merely procedural. They would affect substantive rights.’

Judges:

Sir Owen Dixon CJ

Citations:

(1957) 96 CLR 261

Cited by:

CitedWilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) HL 10-Jul-2003
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent lender of its . .
CitedA v Hoare; H v Suffolk County Council, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs intervening; X and Y v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 12-Apr-2006
Each claimant sought damages for a criminal assault for which the defendant was said to be responsible. Each claim was to be out of the six year limitation period. In the first claim, the proposed defendant had since won a substantial sum from the . .
CitedA v Hoare; H v Suffolk County Council, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs intervening; X and Y v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 12-Apr-2006
Each claimant sought damages for a criminal assault for which the defendant was said to be responsible. Each claim was to be out of the six year limitation period. In the first claim, the proposed defendant had since won a substantial sum from the . .
CitedYew Bon Tew v Kenderaan Bas Mara PC 7-Oct-1982
(Malaysia) In 1972 the appellants were injured by the respondent’s bus. At that time the local limitation period was 12 months. In 1974 the limitation period became three years. The appellants issued a writ in 1975. To succeed they would have to sue . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Commonwealth

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.184431

Arnold v Central Electricity Generating Board: HL 22 Oct 1987

The plaintiff was widow and administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband. He had worked from April 1938 to April 1943 for a predecessor to the CEGB. He had been exposed to asbestos dust as a result of his employer’s negligence and breach of duty. In 1981 he began to suffer mesothelioma, a long-delayed result of his exposure, and he died in May 1982. Proceedings were issued in April 1984. It was agreed that any cause of action the deceased may have had was barred by section 21 of the 1939 Act one year after his employment had ceased, namely in April 1944. The issue was whether the 1963 Act or the 1975 Act revived the deceased’s cause of action.
Held: Any action time-barred before 4 June 1954 remained time-barred.
Lord Bridge thought it ‘beyond question that the Act of 1963 operated retrospectively, when the appropriate conditions were satisfied, to deprive a defendant of an accrued time bar in respect of a claim for damages for personal injuries in which the cause of action had accrued since 4 June 1954 and which had, therefore, been subject to the three year period of limitation introduced by the Act of 1954. This is the combined effect of the relevant provisions of sections 1, 6 and 15.’
Lord Bridge accepted that: ‘Consistently with the presumption that a statute affecting substantive rights is not to be construed as having retrospective operation unless it clearly appears to have been so intended, it seems to me entirely proper, in a case where some retrospective operation was clearly intended, equally to presume that the retrospective operation of the statute extends no further than is necessary to give effect either to its clear language or to its manifest purpose. Construing sections 2A to 2D of the Act of 1939 in the light of section 3 of the Act of 1975, I think that full effect is given both to the language and to the purposes of the legislation if it is held retrospectively applicable to all personal injury actions previously governed by the three year limitation period under the Act of 1954, whether as then enacted or as amended by the Act of 1963. Conversely, I can find nothing in the language or discernible purposes of the statute which leads clearly, let alone avoidably, to the conclusion that defendants previously entitled to rely on the accrued six year and one year time bars under the original Act of 1939 which the Act of 1963 left intact were intended to be deprived of those accrued rights by the Act of 1975.’

Judges:

Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Brightman, Lord Ackner and Lord Oliver of Aylmerton

Citations:

[1988] AC 228, Gazette 25-Nov-1987, [1987] 3 All ER 694, [1987] 3 WLR 1009

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1939 2A(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedYew Bon Tew v Kenderaan Bas Mara PC 7-Oct-1982
(Malaysia) In 1972 the appellants were injured by the respondent’s bus. At that time the local limitation period was 12 months. In 1974 the limitation period became three years. The appellants issued a writ in 1975. To succeed they would have to sue . .
CriticisedKnipe v British Railways Board CA 1972
The plaintiff was injured in 1948, but it later became more serious, and in 1970, having obtained leave under the 1963 Act, he issued proceedings. The defendants argued that his claim was statute-barred under section 2(1). The defendant appealed. . .

Cited by:

CitedNicholls v London Borough of Greenwich CA 3-Apr-2003
The claimant had been employed by the respondent, and earned a pension. She challenged legislation which appeared to operate retrospectively to reduce that pension. The respondent argued that the amount agreed to be paid exceeded the maximum . .
CitedMcDonnell v Congregation of Christian Brothers Trustees (Formerly Irish Christian Brothers) and others HL 4-Dec-2003
In 2000, the claimant sought damages for sexual abuse from before 1951. The issue was as to whether the limitation law which applied was that as at the date of the incidents, or that which applied as at the date when he would be deemed uner the . .
CitedBolton Metropolitan Borough Council v Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd CA 6-Feb-2006
The deceased had come into contact with asbestos when working on building sites for more than one contractor. The claimant here sought contribution from the defendants for the damages it had paid to his estate. The issue was as to liability on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Limitation

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.180539

Jackson v Stevenson: 1897

At common law, it is contrary to constitutional principle and illegal to search someone to establish whether there are grounds for an arrest

Citations:

(1897) 2 Adam 255

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRoberts, Regina (on the application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and another SC 17-Dec-2015
The Court considered the validity of suspicionless stop and search activities under s 60 of the 1994 Act, by police officers.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. The safeguards attending the use of the s 60 power, and in particular the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Constitutional

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.605177

Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill (Attorney General for England and Wales, Reference): SC 9 Jul 2014

‘Her Majesty’s Attorney General for England and Wales has referred to this Court under section 112(1) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 the question of whether, on the proper construction of section 108 and Schedule 7 to the GWA 2006, the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill 2013 is within the legislative competence of the National Assembly of Wales’ The Welsh Government sought to retain a regime regulating agricultural wages in Wales via the Bill. The Wales Act, it said, gave it competence, but this was denied by the Attorney-General saying that the Bill regulated employment law and was outside the Government’s devolved competence.
Held: The Bill was within the competence of the Welsh Assembly.
As to section 104 of the 2006 Act: ‘As the section requires the purpose of the provision to be examined it is necessary to look not merely at what can be discerned from an objective consideration of the effect of its terms’.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Reed, Lord Thomas

Citations:

[2014] UKSC 43, [2014] 1 WLR 262, [2014] 4 All ER 789, UKSC 2013/0188

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary

Statutes:

Government of Wales Act 2006 108 112(1)

Jurisdiction:

Wales

Cited by:

CitedRecovery of Medical Costs for Asbestos Diseases (Wales) Bill (Reference By The Counsel General for Wales) SC 9-Feb-2015
The court was asked whether the Bill was within the competence of the Welsh Assembly. The Bill purported to impose NHS charges on those from whom asbestos related damages were recovered.
Held: The Bill fell outside the legislative competence . .
CitedThe Christian Institute and Others v The Lord Advocate SC 28-Jul-2016
(Scotland) By the 2014 Act, the Scottish Parliament had provided that each child should have a named person to monitor that child’s needs, with information about him or her shared as necessary. The Institute objected that the imposed obligation to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.533878

President of the Republic of South Africa v South African Rugby Football Union: 4 Jun 1999

Constitutional Court of South Africa – The court considered an allegation of bias in the judge, it being said that they should have recused themselves: ‘The question is whether a reasonable, objective and informed person would on the correct facts reasonably apprehend that the judge has not or will not bring an impartial mind to bear on the adjudication of the case, that is a mind open to persuasion by the evidence and the submissions of counsel. The reasonableness of the apprehension must be assessed in the light of the oath of office taken by the judges to administer justice without fear or favour; and their ability to carry out that oath by reason of their training ad experience. It must be assumed that they can disabuse their minds of any irrelevant personal beliefs or predispositions. They must take into account the fact that they have a duty to sit in any case in which they are not obliged to recuse themselves. At the same time it must never be forgotten that an impartial judge is a fundamental prerequisite for a fair trial and a judicial officer should not hesitate to recuse herself or himself if there are reasonable grounds on the part of a litigant for apprehending that the judicial officer, for whatever reasons, was not or will not be impartial.’

Citations:

[1999] ZACC 9, [1999] 4 SA 147

Links:

SAFLii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedO’Neill v Her Majesty’s Advocate No 2 SC 13-Jun-2013
The appellants had been convicted of murder, it being said that they had disposed of her body at sea. They now said that the delay between being first questioned and being charged infringed their rights to a trial within a reasonable time, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Human Rights, Constitutional

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.526344

Newcastle Breweries Ltd v The King: 1921

The court was asked to consider the validity of regulation 2B of the Realm Regulations made under section 1 of the 1914 Act.
Held: The presumption against a statute authorising the expropriation of a subject’s property without payment is even stronger in the context of delegated legislation. Absent a clear provision conferring power to make retrospective delegated legislation, the assumption of such a power offends the legality principle.
Salter J said: ‘I do not think that a regulation which takes away the subjects right to a judicial decision , or transfer the adjudication of his claim without his content, from a court of law to named arbitrators, could fairly be held to be a regulation fro securing the public safety and the defence of the realm, or a regulation designed to prevent the successful prosecution of the war being endangered within the meaning of these words in the defence of the realm consolidation Act, 1914’.

Judges:

Salter J

Citations:

[1920] KB 854

Statutes:

Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act 1914 1

Cited by:

CitedSecretary of State for Energy and Climate Change v Friends of The Earth and Others CA 25-Jan-2012
The Secretary had issued a consultation on the payments for solar energy feed-in-tarriffs, with a view to the new rate being brought in in April 2012. As the consultation ended, he proposed to reduce rates from December 2011. He now appealed against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.450491

Bates v Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone: ChD 1972

A solicitor applied to the court ex parte to restrain a committee acting under delegated powers from making an order changing the basis of charging for conveyancing on the ground that the committee was obliged to allow more time for consultation and representations before it made orders.
Held: There is no right to be heard or consulted before the making of primary or delegated legislation unless such is provided for by statute.
Megarry J said: ‘Let me accept that in the sphere of the so-called quasi-judicial the rules of natural justice run, and that in the administrative or executive field there is a general duty of fairness. Nevertheless the considerations in relation to a general duty of fairness do not seem to me to affect the process of legislation, whether primary or delegated. Many of those affected by delegated legislation and affected very substantially are never consulted in the process of enacting that legislation and yet they have no remedy. I do not know of any implied right to be consulted or to make objections or any principle whereby the courts may enjoin the legislative process at the suit of those who contend that insufficient time for consultation and consideration has been given.’

Judges:

Megarry J

Citations:

[1972] 1 WLR 1373, [1972] 3 All ER 1019

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Liverpool Corporation ex parte Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators Association CA 1972
A number of taxi cab owners challenged a decision of the Council to increase the numbers of hackney cabs operating in the city. At a public meeting with the council prior to the decision, the chairman had given a public undertaking that the numbers . .

Cited by:

CitedBank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC 19-Jun-2013
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Legal Professions

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.460359

Alexander E Hall and Co v Mackenna: PC 1923

Viscount Haldane discussed the status of the Privy Council: ‘The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is not an English body in any exclusive sense. It is no more an English body than it is an Indian body, or a Canadian body, or a South African body, or, for the future, an Irish Free State body . . I mention that for the purpose of bringing out the fact that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is not a body, strictly speaking, with any location. The Sovereign is everywhere throughout the Empire in the contemplation of the law.’

Judges:

Viscount Haldane

Citations:

[1923] IR 402

Cited by:

CitedSeaga v Harper (No 2) PC 29-Jun-2009
No conditional fees without country approval
(Jamaica) Jamaican domestic law did not allow conditional fees or for the recovery of an after the event insurance premium for costs. When the case was appealed to the Board, his English solicitors represented him under a conditional fee agreement . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Ireland

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.375967

National Assistance Board v Wilkinson: 1952

It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that Parliament should not be taken as effecting a fundamental alteration in the general law, by (say) abolishing a long established defence, unless it made this expressly clear in the statutory wording.

Judges:

Devlin J

Citations:

[1952] 2 QB 648

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMetropolitan International Schools Ltd. (T/A Skillstrain And/Or Train2Game) v Designtechnica Corp (T/A Digital Trends) and Others QBD 16-Jul-2009
The claimant complained that the defendant had published on its internet forums comments by posters which were defamatory of it, and which were then made available by the second defendant search engine. The court was asked what responsibility a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.349047

The Attorney General For The Crown Sir William Follett For Mr Le Strange Styleman Le Strange Sir Harris Nicolas For Sir Jacob Astley: 13 May 1841

A summons to Parliament, and a sitting under it, is evidence of a title to a peerage descending to the heirs of the body including females; so likewise is it evidence of a similar title, where there have been several summonses, both prior and subsequent to a sitting in parliament and a sitting in parliament, though no sitting under a summons, has been proved, proof being adduced that during the period of that sitting there were no writs of summons

Citations:

[1841] EngR 667, (1841) West 621, (1841) 9 ER 621

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Constitutional

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.308845

The Rebeckah: 26 Feb 1799

Lord Stowell discussed the rationale behind the inversion in cases involving the Crown of the principle that a clause is to be construed against the proposer saying that: ‘the prerogatives and rights and emoluments of the Crown being conferred upon it for great purposes, and for the public use, it shall not be intended that such prerogatives, rights and emoluments are diminished by any grant, beyond what such grant by necessary and unavoidable construction shall take away.’
Sir William Scott said that ‘the prerogatives . . of the Crown being conferred upon it for great purposes, and for the public use, it shall not be intended that such prerogatives . . are diminished by any grant, beyond what such grant by necessary and unavoidable construction shall take away’

Judges:

Lord Stowell, Sir William Scott

Citations:

(1799) 1 Ch Rob 227, [1799] EngR 645, (1799) 1 C Rob 227, (1799) 165 ER 158

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCrown Estate Commissioners v Roberts and Another ChD 13-Jun-2008
The defendant claimed ownership as Lord Marcher of St Davids of historical rights in foreshores in Pembrokeshire. The claimants sought removal of his cautions against first registration.
Held: Lewison J explored the history of manorial . .
CitedLynn Shellfish Ltd and Others v Loose and Another SC 13-Apr-2016
The court was asked as to the extent of an exclusive prescriptive right (ie an exclusive right obtained through a long period of use) to take cockles and mussels from a stretch of the foreshore on the east side of the Wash, on the west coast of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.269742

Illinois Central Railroad Co v McKendree: 1906

(US Supreme Court) An order of the Secretary of Agriculture purporting to fix a quarantine line under the Cattle Contagious Disease Act (1903), which applied in terms to all shipments, whether interstate or intrastate, was void, notwithstanding that the same line was fixed as to intrastate shipments by legislation of the state through which it passed. Day J said: ‘It is urged by the government that it was not the intention of the Secretary to make provision for intrastate commerce, as the recital of the order shows an intention to adopt the state line, when the state by its legislature has passed the necessary laws to enforce the same completely and strictly. But the order in terms applies alike to interstate and intrastate commerce. . . . We do not say that the state line might not be adopted in a proper case, in the exercise of federal authority, if limited in its effect to interstate commerce coming from below the line, but that is not the present order, and we must deal with it as we find it. Nor have we the power to so limit the Secretary’s order as to make it apply only to interstate commerce, which it is urged is all that is here involved. For aught that appears upon the face of the order, the Secretary intended it to apply to all commerce, and whether he would have made such an order, if strictly limited to interstate commerce, we have no means of knowing. The order is in terms single, and indivisible.’

Judges:

Day J

Citations:

(1906) 203 US 514

Cited by:

CitedThe Employers’ Liability Cases 1908
(US Supreme Court) The court heard together two appeals regarding the range of federal jurisdiction to legislate for the regulation of interstate commerce. The true construction of the federal statute whose constitutionality was in issue was . .
CitedRex v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, Ex parte Whybrow and Co 1910
The court considered the ability to sever void sections of statutes from other sections.
Held: Griffiths CJ said: ‘It is contended, on the authority of decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, which are entitled to the greatest . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Hutchinson; Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith HL 12-Jul-1990
Protesters objected that byelaws which had been made to prevent access to common land, namely Greenham Common were invalid.
Held: The byelaws did prejudice the rights of common. The House was concerned to clarify the test applicable when . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Constitutional

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.259758

The Employers’ Liability Cases: 1908

(US Supreme Court) The court heard together two appeals regarding the range of federal jurisdiction to legislate for the regulation of interstate commerce. The true construction of the federal statute whose constitutionality was in issue was controversial.
Held: (Majority) The statute was unconstitutional. White J said: ‘Of course, if it can be lawfully done, our duty is to construe the statute so as to render it constitutional. But this does not imply, if the text of an act is unambiguous, that it may be rewritten to accomplish that purpose. Equally clear is it, generally speaking, that where a statute contains provisions which are constitutional and ethers which are not, effect may be given to the legal provisions by separating them from the illegal. But this applies only to a case where the provisions are separable and not dependent one upon the other, and does not support the contention that that which is indivisible may be divided. Moreover, even in a case where legal provisions may be severed from those which are illegal, in order to save the rule applies only where is is plain that Congress would have enacted the legislation with the unconsitutional provisions eliminated. All these principles are so clearly settled as not to be open to controversy. They were all, after a full review of the authorities, restated and reapplied in a recent case. Illinois Central Railroad v. McKendree, 203 U.S. 514, and authorities cited there.’

Judges:

White J

Citations:

(1908) 207 US 463

Citing:

CitedIllinois Central Railroad Co v McKendree 1906
(US Supreme Court) An order of the Secretary of Agriculture purporting to fix a quarantine line under the Cattle Contagious Disease Act (1903), which applied in terms to all shipments, whether interstate or intrastate, was void, notwithstanding that . .

Cited by:

CitedRex v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, Ex parte Whybrow and Co 1910
The court considered the ability to sever void sections of statutes from other sections.
Held: Griffiths CJ said: ‘It is contended, on the authority of decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, which are entitled to the greatest . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Hutchinson; Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith HL 12-Jul-1990
Protesters objected that byelaws which had been made to prevent access to common land, namely Greenham Common were invalid.
Held: The byelaws did prejudice the rights of common. The House was concerned to clarify the test applicable when . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Constitutional

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.259759

Mortensen v Peters: 1906

The Danish master of a Norwegian steam-trawler was prosecuted for using a particular method of fishing in the Moray Firth. He argued that, although the statute banning the method would have caught a British fisherman, it should be construed as impliedly excepting all foreigners fishing from foreign vessels outside the territorial jurisdiction of the British Crown.
Held: The defence failed. Lord Salvesen said that it could scarcely be supposed that the British Parliament should pass legislation placing British fishermen under a disability which did not extend to foreigners: ‘I think, it was a just observation of the Solicitor General that, if legislation of this nature had been proposed, and the words inserted which the Dean of Faculty maintained were implied, it would never have been submitted by a responsible minister or have received the approval of Parliament.’

Judges:

Lord Salvesen

Citations:

(1906) 8 F (J) 93

Cited by:

CitedWatkins v Home Office and others HL 29-Mar-2006
The claimant complained of misfeasance in public office by the prisons for having opened and read protected correspondence whilst he was in prison. The respondent argued that he had suffered no loss. The judge had found that bad faith was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Constitutional, Agriculture

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.240007

Rex v Lord Rusby: 1800

The common law, in being formed from time to time by the wisdom of man it grew and increased from time to time with the wisdom of mankind.

Judges:

Lord Kenyon

Citations:

(1800) Pea (2) 189

Cited by:

CitedA and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) HL 8-Dec-2005
Evidence from 3rd Party Torture Inadmissible
The applicants had been detained following the issue of certificates issued by the respondent that they posed a terrorist threat. They challenged the decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission saying that evidence underlying the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Constitutional

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.235924

Perth and Kinross Council v Donaldson and Others: 2004

The court considered whether the TUPE regulations in going beyond what was required under the European Directive was invalid.
Held: ‘If it is to be suggested that the 1981 Regulations have effectively allowed the Directive to operate in that context, we consider that it falls foul of the approach that we adopted in Addison v Denholm Ship Management (UK) Ltd [1997] ICR 770 to the effect that it is going beyond the scope of the Directive and would therefore in that respect be ultra vires. The issue requires to be addressed by primary legislation.’

Judges:

Lord Johnson

Citations:

[2004] ICR 667

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

CitedAddison v Denholm Ship Management (UK) Ltd EAT 1997
An issue before the EAT was whether regulations made under section 2(2) of the 1972 Act applied to the crew of a floating hotel/ship in the North Sea.
Held: According to European law the UK could choose whether or not to apply employment . .

Cited by:

CitedOakley Inc v Animal Ltd and others CA 20-Oct-2005
It was argued that the Secretary of State, when implementing the Directive in the 2001 Regulations, had exceeded his powers in preserving provisions of the Registered Designs Act. The judge had held the Seceretary had exceeded his powers. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Constitutional

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.235765

Powell v Apollo Candle Co Ltd: PC 1885

The Board declared firmly that the earlier decisions had put an end to the doctrine that a colonial legislature is a delegate of the Imperial legislature.

Citations:

(1885) 10 App Cas 282

Cited by:

CitedJackson and others v Attorney General HL 13-Oct-2005
The applicant sought to challenge the 2004 Hunting Act, saying that it had been passed under the provisions of the 1949 Parliament Act which was itself an unlawful extension of the powers given by the 1911 Parliament Act to allow the House of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.231155

Viscountess Rhondda’s Claim: HL 1922

(Committee of Privileges of the House of Lords) Viscountess Rhondda asserted a right to sit in the House of Lords as a member, relying on the 1919 Act.
Held: It is incorrect for a court to draw conclusions from such elements of the Parliamentary history of the legislation as the proposal and rejection of amendments. It is the sole right of the Committee to decide who was entitled to receive the Writ of Summons and Lord Lyndhurst said that if a person is entitled to a writ, but the Crown does not issue one, then his remedy is to petition the House.
Lord Birkenhead LC said: ‘The rule that the words of an instrument shall be taken most strictly against the party employing them – verba chartarum fortius accipiuntur contra proferentem – does not apply to the Crown such a grant is construed most strictly against the grantee and most beneficially for the Crown, so that nothing will pass to the grantee but by clear and express words.’ It was the duty of the Committee for Privileges to consider whether she was entitled to receive a Writ of Summons: ‘The writ is not to be issued capriciously or withheld capriciously at the pleasure of the Sovereign or of this House. It is to be issued, or withheld, according to the law relating to the matter, and if, under that law, it appears that there is a debt of justice to the petitioner in that matter, the writ will issue and, if not, it cannot issue.’
Lord Lyndhurst said: ‘If a Writ of Summons is improperly withheld, your Lordships can insist upon its being issued. You may address the Crown for that purpose if you think proper. If that address to the Crown is unavailing, there is a remedy that in a remarkable case has been resorted to and which was effectual to attain its object. The Peers in Parliament, in that case, refused to proceed to business until the Writ of Summons was issued and until the House was properly constituted, and the historian who records this fact says that the means adopted were so effectual that the King was induced to issue the Writ of Summons and that the abuse of which they complained never occurred again. That is a remedy when the Writ of Summons is withheld. On the other hand, when a party has obtruded himself upon the House in which he has no right to sit, the remedy is equally plain. It is your duty to direct your Officers to refuse to administer the oaths, or allow the party to take his seat.’

Judges:

Viscount Haldane, Lord Birkenhead LC

Citations:

[1922] 2 AC 339

Statutes:

Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedThe Wensleydale Peerage HL 22-Feb-1856
Sir James Parke, a distinguished judge of the Court of the Exchequer, was created a Life Peer but the House of Lords refused to allow him to sit and vote in the House because, they decided, that as the law then stood, the creation of Life Peers was . .

Cited by:

CitedJackson and others v Attorney General HL 13-Oct-2005
The applicant sought to challenge the 2004 Hunting Act, saying that it had been passed under the provisions of the 1949 Parliament Act which was itself an unlawful extension of the powers given by the 1911 Parliament Act to allow the House of . .
CitedCrown Estate Commissioners v Roberts and Another ChD 13-Jun-2008
The defendant claimed ownership as Lord Marcher of St Davids of historical rights in foreshores in Pembrokeshire. The claimants sought removal of his cautions against first registration.
Held: Lewison J explored the history of manorial . .
CitedMereworth v Ministry of Justice ChD 23-May-2011
The claimant’s father had been granted the hereditary title of Baron of Mereworth. The claimant having inherited the title objected to the refusal to issue to him a writ of summons to sit in the House of Lords.
Held: The claim was struck out . .
CitedLynn Shellfish Ltd and Others v Loose and Another SC 13-Apr-2016
The court was asked as to the extent of an exclusive prescriptive right (ie an exclusive right obtained through a long period of use) to take cockles and mussels from a stretch of the foreshore on the east side of the Wash, on the west coast of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Constitutional, Discrimination

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.231154

Reference re Language Rights under the Manitoba Act 1870: 1985

(Supreme Court of Canada) The court declined to give retroactive effect to its decision on the constitutional invalidity of all statutes and regulations of the Province of Manitoba not printed and published in both English and French. A declaration that the unilingual laws of Manitoba were of no effect would have created a legal vacuum with consequent legal chaos. Refusing to take a narrow and literal approach to constitutional interpretation, the court held it could have regard to unwritten postulates such as the principle of the rule of law. Faced with the task of recognising the unconstitutionality of Manitoba’s unilingual laws while avoiding a legal vacuum and ensuring the continuity of the rule of law, the court made a ruling which gave deemed temporary validity to all laws rendered invalid by reason of their unilingual defect.

Citations:

(1985) 19 DLR (4th) 1

Cited by:

CitedNational Westminster Bank plc v Spectrum Plus Limited and others HL 30-Jun-2005
Former HL decision in Siebe Gorman overruled
The company had become insolvent. The bank had a debenture and claimed that its charge over the book debts had become a fixed charge. The preferential creditors said that the charge was a floating charge and that they took priority.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Constitutional

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.228294

Orissa Cement Ltd v State of Orissa: 1991

(Supreme Court of India) The Supreme Court founded its jurisdiction to make rulings which had prospective effect only, on article 142 of the Indian Constitution. This article empowers the Supreme Court to ‘make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it’. In exercise of this power it is a ‘well settled proposition that it is open to the Court to grant, mould or restrict relief in a manner most appropriate to the situation before it, in such a way as to advance the interests of justice’

Citations:

1991 Supp (1) SCC 430

Commonwealth, Constitutional

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.228291

Robinson v The Queen: PC 1985

Where a defendant found himself unrepresented on the day of trial, an adjournment should be granted. The constitutional right to representation was not a guarantee of representation but a right for the defendant to arrange representation at his own or public expense. The trial had proceeded when the defendant, having failed to put his counsel in funds, appeared unrepresented: ‘… the important word used in section 20(6)(c) is ‘permitted’. He must not be prevented by the State in any of its manifestations, whether judicial or executive, from exercising the right accorded by the subsection. He must be permitted to exercise those rights.’

Citations:

[1985] AC 956, [1985] 2 All ER 594

Statutes:

Jamaica (Constitution) Order in Council 1962 SCh 2 s20(6)(c)

Cited by:

CitedGianchand Jahree v The State PC 28-Feb-2005
(Mauritius) The defendant appealed his conviction for possession of counterfeit bank notes, saying he had been unrepresented throughout, and that the magistrate had intervened in the character of a prosecutor.
Held: The right to representation . .
AppliedDunkley and Robinson v The Queen PC 1-Nov-1994
(Jamaica) The appellant’s counsel had walked out of a murder trial after a dispute with the judge, leaving the appellant unrepresented for the remainder of the proceedings.
Held: A defendant in a capital murder case is to be allowed to find . .
CitedGrant v The Queen PC 16-Jan-2006
(Jamaica) The defendant appealed his conviction for murder saying that the admission of an unsworn statement by one witness and the non-admission of another similar statement who did not either attend court was unconstitutional. He shot the victim . .
CitedDelroy Ricketts v The Queen PC 15-Dec-1997
(Jamaica) Special leave was granted to the defendant to appeal his conviction for murder. Counsel had been late for his trial, and the jury empanelled. When counsel arrived he said the defendant had not understood the judge. A trial took place as to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Criminal Practice, Constitutional

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.223459

Davis v Johnson: CA 1978

The court had to consider whether the Act protected cohabitees as well as wives. In doing so the court looked at whether it could look to parliamentary debates.
Held: Lord Denning MR said: ‘Some may say, and indeed have said, that judges should not pay any attention to what is said in Parliament. They should grope about in the dark for the meaning of an Act without switching on the light. I do not accede to this view . . It is obvious that there is nothing to prevent a judge looking at these debates himself privately and getting some guidance from them. Although it may shock the purists, I may as well confess that I have sometimes done it. I have done it in this very case. It has thrown a flood of light on the position. The statements made in committee disposed completely of counsel for the respondent’s argument before us.’ but (Cumming-Bruce LJ) ‘I am not alarmed by the criticism that I am a purist who prefers to shut his eyes to the guiding light shining in the reports of parliamentary debates in Hansard.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Cumming-Bruce LJ

Citations:

[1978] 1 All ER 841

Statutes:

Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromDavis v Johnson HL 2-Jan-1978
The court was asked to interpret the 1976 Act to see whether its protection extended to cohabitees as well as to wives. In doing so it had to look at practice in the Court of Appeal in having to follow precedent.
Held: The operation of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Constitutional

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.200596

Mitchell v Director of Public Prosecutions of Grenada: PC 1986

(Grenada) The petitioner sought to appeal to the Board from Grenada. The powers conferred on the Board by the Acts of 1833 and 1844, and other later instruments, have superceded the old prerogative power formerly exercised by the King in Council. The 1967 Order was made under powers conferred by the Judicial Committee Act 1844 and the language of section 3 shows clearly that it is concerned not with the constitutional question of whether a right of appeal should exist but with the procedural question of how such an appeal should be exercised. Once the Constitution was amended to abolish the right of appeal, there was nothing upon which the 1967 Order could operate.

Citations:

[1986] AC 73, [1985] 3 WLR 72

Statutes:

Judicial Committee Act 1844 3, West Indies Associated States (appeals to the Privy Council) Order 1967 (SI 1967 No 224), Grenada Constitution Order 1973 (SI 1973 No 2155), Privy Council (Abolition of Appeals) Law 1979

Cited by:

CitedThe Attorney General for St Christopher and Nevis v Rodionov PC 20-Jul-2004
(St. Christopher and Nevis) The government of Canada requested the extradition of the respondent. The Attorney General sought special leave to appeal against the order for his discharge from custody, which had been on the grounds of the prejudice . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Commonwealth

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.199436

The United States of America v Gaynor: PC 1905

The Privy Council allowed an appeal from an order of a Judge, itself having given special leave to appeal.
Lord Halsbury LC said: ‘Their Lordships do not mean to suggest that the writ of habeas corpus is not applicable when there is a preliminary proceeding. Each case must depend upon its own merits. But where a prisoner is brought before a competent tribunal, and is charged with an extradition offence and remanded for the express purpose of affording the prosecution the opportunity of bringing forward the evidence by which that accusation is to be supported; if, in such a case, upon a writ of habeas corpus, a learned Judge treats the remand warrant as a nullity, and proceeds to adjudicate upon the case as though the whole evidence were before him, it would paralyze the administration of justice and render it impossible for the proceedings in extradition to be effective.’

Judges:

Lord Halsbury L.C

Citations:

[1905] AC 128

Cited by:

CitedThe Attorney General for St Christopher and Nevis v Rodionov PC 20-Jul-2004
(St. Christopher and Nevis) The government of Canada requested the extradition of the respondent. The Attorney General sought special leave to appeal against the order for his discharge from custody, which had been on the grounds of the prejudice . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Constitutional, Extradition

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.199443

Winfat Enterprise (Hong Kong) Co Ltd v Attorney-General of Hong Kong: PC 1985

The power to make laws for ‘peace, order and good government’ was widely recognised. Section 15 of New Territories Land Court Ordinance 1900 provided: ‘All land in the New Territories is hereby declared to be the property of the Crown . . ‘. It deemed the occupiers to be trespassers unless their occupation was authorised by the Crown. This replaced Chinese customary tenure, which was assignable and heritable. One of the issues in the case was whether that customary interest survived so that a developer whose land was being acquired for a price below its market value, could rely on it. It was held that the land vested in the Crown under that wide declaratory power.

Citations:

[1985] AC 733

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedChagos Islanders v The Attorney General, Her Majesty’s British Indian Ocean Territory Commissioner QBD 9-Oct-2003
The Chagos Islands had been a British dependent territory since 1814. The British government repatriated the islanders in the 1960s, and the Ilois now sought damages for their wrongful displacement, misfeasance, deceit, negligence and to establish a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.186647

Lonrho Exports Ltd v Export Credit Guarantee Department: 1999

A court must follow the interpretation of the Crown and cannot venture its own interpretation of international treaties, nor could it seek to see whether the Crown had implemented its provisions in good faith as required

Judges:

Lightman J

Citations:

[1999] Ch 158

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedChagos Islanders v The Attorney General, Her Majesty’s British Indian Ocean Territory Commissioner QBD 9-Oct-2003
The Chagos Islands had been a British dependent territory since 1814. The British government repatriated the islanders in the 1960s, and the Ilois now sought damages for their wrongful displacement, misfeasance, deceit, negligence and to establish a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.186649

Morgentaler v Regina: 28 Jan 1988

Supreme Court of Canada – Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Life, liberty and security of the person — Fundamental justice — Abortion — Criminal Code prohibiting abortion except where life or health of woman endangered — Whether or not abortion provisions infringe right to life, liberty and security of the person — If so, whether or not such infringement in accord with fundamental justice — Whether or not impugned legislation reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 7 — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s. 251.
Constitutional law — Jurisdiction — Superior court powers and inter-delegation — Whether or not therapeutic abortion committees exercising s. 96 court functions — Whether or not abortion provisions improperly delegate criminal law powers — Constitution Act, 1867, ss. 91(27), 96.
Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Whether or not Attorney General’s right of appeal constitutional — Costs — Whether or not prohibition on costs constitutional — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, ss. 605, 610(3).
Criminal law — Abortion — Criminal Code prohibiting abortion and procuring of abortion except where life or health of woman endangered — Whether or not abortion provisions ultra vires Parliament — Whether or not abortion provisions infringe right to life, liberty and security of the person — If so, whether or not such infringement in accord with fundamental justice — Whether or not impugned legislation reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Criminal law — Juries — Address to jury advising them to ignore law as stated by judge — Counsel wrong.

Judges:

Dickson CJ and Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson and La Forest JJ

Citations:

[1988] 1 SCR 30, 1988 CanLII 90 (SCC)

Links:

Canlii

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Constitutional, Human Rights, Crime, Health Professions

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.597674

China Navigation Co Ltd v Attorney General: CA 1932

The Plaintiffs, an English shipping company, carrying on business in Hong Kong, traded in both local and Chinese waters. Its trade consisted both of carrying cargo and passengers. The Chinese and neighbouring waters were infested by pirates who frequently attacked ships trading in those waters, both from within and without the ships, the attacks from within being by evil-disposed persons who came on board – whether at the port of Hong Kong or Chinese ports – ostensibly as ordinary and peaceable passengers but who, on opportunity overpowered the officers and crew and took possession of the ship and all valuables therein. For some time the Government of Hong Kong was prevailed upon by various ship owners, including the Plaintiffs, to provide and place naval and military guards on board. Subsequently, however, Government notffied ship owners that as from a specified date ship owners would be required to pay in full for all guards supplied. The Plaintiff instituted proceedings in England against the Attorney General of England as representative of the Crown, seeking declarations that the Crown had no authority to demand money for providing protection against piracy, the ship owners, as subjects of His Majesty, being entitled to require the Crown to provide the necessary protection without payment. Rowlatt, J, before whom the action first came, dismissed it as misconceived.
Held: The Court of Appeal affirmed that decision. The Crown is under no legal duty to afford military protection to British subjects abroad. If, in the exercise of its discretion, the Crown decides to afford such protection, it may lawfully stipulate that it will do so only on the condition that the cost should be borne by those requiring such extraordinary protection.
The legal history relating to the relationship between servicemen and women and the Crown can be traced back over many centuries, and at least since the reign of Charles II, the government and command of military forces had been vested in the Crown by prerogative right at common law and by statute.

Judges:

Lawrence LJ

Citations:

[1932] 2 KB 197, [1932] All ER 626

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex Parte Northumbria Police Authority CA 18-Nov-1987
The Authority appealed from refusal of judicial review of a circular issued by the respondent as to the supply of Plastic Baton Rounds and CS gas from central resources only. The authority suggested that the circular amounted to permission for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Armed Forces

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.554757

Reference re : Amendment to the Canadian Constitution: 9 Feb 1982

Supreme Court of Canada – Application for leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of Quebec dismissing applicant’s application to intervene relating to a reference ordered by the Government of Quebec. Application dismisse

Citations:

[1982] 2 SCR 791, 1982 CanLII 218 (SCC)

Links:

Canlii

Commonwealth, Constitutional

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.554758

Minister of Health v The King ex parte Yaffe: 1931

Lord Thankerton said: ‘In this case, as in similar cases that have come before the Courts, Parliament has delegated its legislative function to a Minister of the Crown, but in this case Parliament has retained no specific control over the exercise of the function by the Minister, such as a condition that the order should be laid before Parliament and might be annulled by a resolution of either House within a limited period. In my opinion the true principle of construction of such delegation by Parliament of its legislative function is that it only confers a limited power on the Minister, and that, unless Parliament expressly excludes the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court has the right and duty to decide whether the Minister has acted within the limits of his delegated power.’
and: ‘Where, however, the power delegated to the Minister is a discretionary power, the exercise of that power within the limits of the discretion will not be open to challenge in a Court of law.’

Judges:

Lord Thankerton

Citations:

[1931] AC 494

Cited by:

CitedMcEldowney v Forde HL 18-Jun-1969
The House was asked whether the Magistrates had properly dismissed a charge of membership of an unlawful organisation, namely a Republican club. The Magistrates had found that an unlawful club would only be such if it supported the absorption of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.546905

City of London v Samede and Others: QBD 18 Jan 2012

The claimant sought an order for possession of land outside St Paul’s cathedral occupied by the protestor defendants, consisting of ‘a large number of tents, between 150 and 200 at the time of the hearing, many of them used by protestors, either regularly or from time to time, as overnight accommodation, and several larger tents used for other activities and services including the holding of meetings and the providing other facilities. The size and extent of the camp varied over time. Shortly before the hearing its footprint receded in some places. At an earlier stage some adjustments had been made to it in an effort to keep fire lanes open.’ The court was asked as to the claimant’s rights to the land, whether orders should be made, and if so whether orders would be a proportionate necessary and lawful interferebce in the defendant’s rights.
Held: The Order was granted. Part of the land occupied was a public highway, and the claimant had a power to keep it open. The right to obstruct a highway did not extend to a right to a long term bstruction.

Judges:

Lindblom J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 34 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 9 10 11, Highways Act 1980 130, Public Health Act 1936 269, Human Rights Act 1998 13

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedZana v Turkey ECHR 25-Nov-1997
Turkey – prison sentence imposed by Diyarbakir National Security Court on account of a statement to journalists (Articles 168 and 312 of the Criminal Code) – accused unable to appear at hearing in that court (Article 226 – 4 of the Code of Criminal . .
CitedHarrison v Duke of Rutland CA 8-Dec-1893
H used a public highway crossing the defendant’s land, to disrupt grouse-shooting upon the defendant’s land. He complained after he had been forcibly restrained by the defendant’s servants from doing so. The defendant justified his actions saying . .
CitedHandyside v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Dec-1976
Freedom of Expression is Fundamental to Society
The appellant had published a ‘Little Red Schoolbook’. He was convicted under the 1959 and 1964 Acts on the basis that the book was obscene, it tending to deprave and corrupt its target audience, children. The book claimed that it was intended to . .
CitedHall and Others v Mayor of London (on Behalf of The Greater London Authority) CA 16-Jul-2010
The appellants sought leave to appeal against an order for possession of Parliament Square on which the claimants had been conducting a demonstration (‘the Democracy Village’).
Held: Leave was refused save for two appellants whose cases were . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Jones and Lloyd HL 4-Mar-1999
21 people protested peacefully on the verge of the A344, next to the perimeter fence at Stonehenge. Some carried banners saying ‘Never Again,’ ‘Stonehenge Campaign 10 years of Criminal Injustice’ and ‘Free Stonehenge.’ The officer in charge . .
CitedScott v Mid-South Essex Justices and Keskin Admn 25-Mar-2004
The private prosecutor appealed against the dismissal by the magistrates of his allegation that the defendant had unlawfully obstructed the highway. In essence the question was whether Mr Keskin should have been found to have a lawful excuse. He . .
CitedTabernacle v Secretary of State for Defence CA 5-Feb-2009
The claimant sought judicial review to test the validity of the bye-laws which prohibited them from camping on public land to support their demonstration.
Held: The bye-laws violated the claimant’s right to freedom of assembly and of . .
CitedSouthwark London Borough Council v Williams CA 1971
No Defence of Homelessness to Squatters
The defendants, in dire need of housing accommodation entered empty houses owned by the plaintiff local authority as squatters. The court considered the defence of necessity.
Held: The proper use of abandoned council properties is best . .
CitedBegum (otherwise SB), Regina (on the Application of) v Denbigh High School HL 22-Mar-2006
The student, a Muslim wished to wear a full Islamic dress, the jilbab, but this was not consistent with the school’s uniform policy. She complained that this interfered with her right to express her religion.
Held: The school’s appeal . .
CitedLaporte, Regina (on the application of ) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimants had been in coaches being driven to take part in a demonstration at an air base. The defendant police officers stopped the coaches en route, and, without allowing any number of the claimants to get off, returned the coaches to London. . .
CitedDickson and Another v United Kingdom ECHR 15-Dec-2007
(Grand Chamber) The complainants were husband and wife. They had been married whilst the husband served a sentence of life imprisonment. They had been refused suport for artificial insemination treatment.
Held: The claim succeeded. The refusal . .
CitedSecretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs v Meier and Others SC 1-Dec-2009
The claimant sought a possession order to recover land from trespassers. The court considered whether a possession order was available where not all the land was occupied, and it was feared that the occupiers might simply move onto a different part. . .
CitedPowell v McFarlane ChD 1977
Intention to Establish Adverse Possession of Land
A squatter had occupied the land and defended a claim for possession. The court discussed the conditions necessary to establish an intention to possess land adversely to the paper owner.
Held: Slade J said: ‘It will be convenient to begin by . .
CitedWiltshire County Council v Frazer CA 1984
For a party to avail himself of the Order he must bring himself within its words. If he does so the court has no discretion to refuse him possession. The rules require: ‘(1) of the plaintiff that he should have a right to possession of the land in . .
CitedBuckinghamshire County Council v Moran CA 13-Feb-1989
The parties’ respective properties were separated by a fence or hedge and the true owner had no access to the disputed land. In 1967 the Defendants’ predecessors in title began to maintain the land by mowing the grass and trimming the hedges and . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromThe Mayor Commonalty and Citizens of London v Samede (St Paul’s Churchyard Camp Representative) and Others CA 22-Feb-2012
The defendants sought to appeal against an order for them to vacate land outside St Paul’s Cathedral in London which they occupied as a protest.
Held: The application for leave to appeal failed. The only possible ground for appeal was on the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Constitutional, Human Rights

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.450508

HM Advocate v Scottish Media Newspapers Ltd: 2000

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry discussed the fetters place upon the Lord Advocate by the 1998 Act, saying that he simply has no power to move the court to grant any remedy which would be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Judges:

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

Citations:

2000 SLT 331

Statutes:

Scotland Act 1998 57(2), European Convention on Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedMcGowan (Procurator Fiscal) v B SC 23-Nov-2011
The appellant complained that after arrest, though he had been advised of his right to legal advice, and had declined the offer, it was still wrong to have his subsequent interview relied upon at his trial.
Held: It was not incompatible with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Constitutional, Human Rights

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.449021

Regina v Secretary of State for Transport ex-parte Factortame and Others: CA 1988

The Secretary of State was willing to make legal advice given to him available on the grounds that privilege had been waived, but not advice after a particular cut off date. The claimants were dubious as to whether the privilege had been properly claimed and sought an order for disclosure of edited documents in order to determine that question.
Held: Auld LJ referred to Nea Karteria and said: ‘Of course, the scope for unfairness depends on the breadth of the matter in issue or their severability if more than one, and on the exact relationship and/or relevance to such issue(s) of the documents respectively disclosed and sought to be withheld. It may or may not be that partial disclosure of documents going to a matter or matters in issue, say in an exchange of correspondence with legal advisers, would be unfair.
Much depends on whether the party making partial disclosure seeks to represent by so doing that the disclosed documents go to part or the whole of an ‘issue in question’, the expression used by Mustill J in the passage from his judgment in Nea Karteria that I have cited. The issue may be confined to what was said or done in a single transaction or it may be more complex than that and extend over a series of connected events or transactions. In each case the question for the court is whether the matters in issue and the document or documents in respect of which partial disclosure has been made are respectively severable so that the partially disclosed material clearly does not bear on matters in issue in respect of which the material is withheld. . . .’

Judges:

Auld LJ, Popplewell LJ

Citations:

[1989] 2 CMLR 353

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedNea Karteria Maritime Co Ltd v Atlantic and Great Lakes Steamship Corporation (No 2) 11-Dec-1978
The court considered disclosure of a legally privileged note of an interview: ‘I believe that the principle underlying the rule of practice exemplified by Burnell v British Transport Commission is that, where a party is deploying in court material . .

Cited by:

CitedBrennan and others v Sunderland City Council Unison GMB EAT 16-Dec-2008
No Waiver for disclosure of Advice
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Admissibility of evidence
The claimant sought disclosure of certain legal advice on the basis that its effect, and a summary of its contents, had been put before the court and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Constitutional

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.344016

Carson v Carson: 1964

The court echoed the description of the rule against retrospectivity in an Act so as to remove existing right, quoting Maxwell ‘Upon the presumption that the legislature does not intend what is unjust rests the leaning against giving certain statutes a retrospective operation. They are construed as operating only in cases or on facts which come into existence after the statutes were passed unless a retrospective effect is clearly intended. It is a fundamental rule of English law that no statute shall be construed to have a retrospective operation unless such a construction appears very clearly in the terms of the Act, or arises by necessary and distinct implication.’

Judges:

Scarman J

Citations:

[1964] 1 WLR 511

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedOxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council, Catherine Mary Robinson ChD 22-Jan-2004
Land had been registered in part as a common. The council appealed.
Held: The rights pre-existing the Act had not been lost. The presumption against retrospectively disapplying vested rights applied, and the application had properly been made. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.192182

Regina v Lord Chancellor, ex parte Lightfoot: CA 18 Aug 1999

A debtor does not have a right, under the constitution to participate in any scheme for the relief of debt. Accordingly it was not ultra vires for the Lord Chancellor to provide no discretion on the payment of court fees by an intending applicant for bankruptcy. Such fees were used toward the administration of the applicant’s affairs.

Citations:

Times 18-Aug-1999, Gazette 11-Aug-1999

Statutes:

Insolvency Fees Order 1986 (1986 No 2030) 8(1) 9(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insolvency, Constitutional

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.85375

Lennox Phillip and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions of Trinidad and Tobago and Another; Same vCommissioners of Prisons: PC 19 Feb 1992

(Trinidad and Tobago) There had been an insurrection, and many people were taken prisoner by the insurrectionists. To secure their release, the President issued an amnesty to all the insurgents, including the applicant. After surrendering, the applicant was kept in custody, and now sought his own release. Writs of habeas corpus were refused.
Held: The prisoners who had been pardoned before their trial, but had remained in custody because there were doubts about the constitutional propriety of their pardons, had an arguable case for habeas corpus application. They had established prima facie the validity of the pardons, and their continued detention without return to court to argue the habeas corpus application was unlawful. At the hearing of the habeas corpus application, the court would be able to determine the validity of the pardons.

Citations:

Gazette 19-Feb-1992, [1992] 1 AC 545, [1992] 2 WLR 211

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Citing:

CitedRex v Rudd 1775
Mrs Rudd applied for a writ of habeas corpus, having already given evidence as an accomplice and being ready to give further evidence to assist in convicting her partners in crime.
Held: Where a co-accused gave evidence for the crown and . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Uxbridge Magistrates and Another ex parte Adimi; R v CPS ex parte Sorani; R v SSHD and Another ex parte Kaziu Admn 29-Jul-1999
The three asylum seeker appellants arrived in the United Kingdom at different times in possession of false passports. They were prosecuted for possession or use of false documents contrary to section 5, and for obtaining air services by deception . .
See AlsoAttorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v Phillip PC 9-Nov-1994
A pardon which had been give to insurrectionists was invalid, since it purported to excuse future conduct also, but there had been no duress shown. There is no general power to excuse a crime before it is committed. Lord Woolf: ‘A pardon must in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Commonwealth, Constitutional, Human Rights

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.84711

Nwogbe v Nwogbe: CA 11 Jul 2000

There was no power to enforce an order made under the Act, when making an occupation order, which included orders for the payment of rent, and other outgoings. Such orders did not come within the exceptions under the Debtors Act, nor under the Administration of Justice Act to allow for enforcement by committal, and the section itself could not be read so strongly as to imply a repeal of the earlier Acts.
Modern standards of parliamentary draftsmanship are high, and the presumption against implied repeal is strong.

Judges:

Walker LJ

Citations:

Times 11-Jul-2000, Gazette 07-Sep-2000, [2000] 2 FLR 744

Statutes:

Family Law Act 1996 40, Administration of Justice Act 1970, Debtors Act 1869

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBH and Another v The Lord Advocate and Another SC 20-Jun-2012
The appellants wished to resist their extradition to the US to face criminal charges for drugs. As a married couple that said that the extraditions would interfere with their children’s rights to family life.
Held: The appeals against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Constitutional

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.84397

Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Secretary of State for et Environment Transport and the Regions and Another: CA 14 Mar 2000

An Act might include a power to amend another by secondary legislation, but any such power must be construed narrowly. The owners of property sought to change its use from long term residential use to a use for short term visitors. S25 of the main Act remained unaffected by subsequent secondary legislation.

Citations:

Times 14-Mar-2000

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 172, Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973 25

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Constitutional, Planning, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81572

Attorney-General v Barker: CA 16 Feb 2000

An order that someone be denied access to the courts save with consent of a judge was a challenge to that individual’s constitutional rights, and should only be made if the statutory pre-conditions are fulfilled. It had to be shown that the litigant had habitually and persistently and without reasonable ground instituted vexatious civil proceedings. Without fulfillment of that pre-condition, no discretion lay in the judge to make an order. That precondition was not satisfied in this case, and an order was refused.
Lord Bingham CJ: ”Vexatious’ is a familiar term in legal parlance. The hallmark of a vexatious proceedings is in my judgment that it has little or no basis in law (or at least no discernible basis); that whatever the intention of the proceeding may be, its effect is to subject the defendant to inconvenience, harassment and expense out of all proportion to any gain likely to accrue to the claimant; and that it involves an abuse of the process of the court, meaning by that a use of the court process for a purpose or in a way which is significantly different from the ordinary and proper use of the court process.’ and
‘From extensive experience of dealing with applications under section 42 the court has become familiar with the hallmark of persistent and habitual litigious activity. The hallmark usually is that the plaintiff sues the same party repeatedly in reliance on essentially the same cause of action, perhaps with minor variations, after it has been ruled upon, thereby imposing on defendants the burden of resisting claim after claim; that the claimant relies on essentially the same cause of action, perhaps with minor variations, after it has been ruled upon, in actions against successive parties who if they were to be sued at all should have been joined in the same action; that the claimant automatically challenges every adverse decision on appeal; and that the claimant refuses to take any notice of or give any effect to orders of the court. The essential vice of habitual and persistent litigation is keeping on and on litigating when earlier litigation has been unsuccessful and when on any rational and objective assessment the time has come to stop.’

Judges:

Lord Bingham CJ

Citations:

Times 07-Mar-2000, Gazette 09-Mar-2000, [2001] 1 FLR 759

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 42(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHM Attorney-General v Ian Richard Flack Admn 29-Nov-2000
A civil proceedings order was sought against the respondent. The respondent had commenced many actions against a particular company, which it was claimed were vindictive in nature.
Held: Though the earliest proceedings had been vexatious it . .
CitedHM Attorney General v Pepin Admn 27-May-2004
Civil proceedings order. The defendant had commenced ten sets of proceedings which the court held amounted to serial and repeated litigation of the same points.
Held: The fact that new details had emerged which might throw new light on the . .
CitedHM Attorney General v Foden Admn 7-Apr-2005
Application for Civil Proceedings Order.
Held: ‘This defendant has become a compulsive litigant who has lost touch with reality. Her remorseless pursuit of litigation is wholly without merit, is clearly vexatious and has perpetrated a waste of . .
CitedAttorney General v Perotti Admn 10-May-2006
The respondent had been subject first to a Grepe v Loam order and then to an extended civil restraint order. The court had still faced many hopeless applications. An order was now sought that any future application for permission to appeal be heard . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.77976

Building Construction Employees and Builders’ Labourers Federation of New South Wales v Minister for Industrial Relations: 1986

(New South Wales Court of Appeal) The court upheld the validity of a law which directed a particular outcome of a judicial act. The words included the formula ‘prescribe and confine the scope of the legislative field open to the New South Wales Parliament’. Street CJ said: ‘It appears to be generally assumed that these words confer unlimited legislative power, comparable with that vested in the English Parliament itself. I can find no satisfactory basis for that assumption. The words, by their very terms, confine the powers conferred to ‘peace, welfare and good government’ of the body politic in respect of which the legislature is being established.
Assertions that these words convey plenary, or sovereign, power are to be found frequently in cases in which it has been felt necessary to reject any suggestion that the legislature in question is a mere delegate of the English Parliament and thus is not able to delegate further the law-making powers vested in it. Such suggestions have been uniformly rejected. But the rejection of such suggestions on the basis that the words convey plenary or sovereign power does not necessarily import that the power is unlimited in scope.’

Judges:

Street CJ

Citations:

(1986) 7 NSWLR 372

Citing:

CitedThe Queen v Burah PC 5-Jun-1978
The Board was asked whether Act No. XXII of 1869 of the Indian Legislature was inconsistent with the Indian High Courts Act (24 and 25 Vict. c. 104) or with the Charter of the High Court, or whether it was within the legislative power of the . .

Cited by:

CitedBancoult, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimants challenged the 2004 Order which prevented their return to their homes on the Chagos Islands. The islanders had been taken off the island to leave it for use as a US airbase. In 2004, the island was no longer needed, and payment had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Constitutional

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.277178

Fabrigas v Mostyn: 1775

The plaintiff a native Minorquan sought to bring an action in England for an alleged assault and false imprisonment on him in Minorca by the Governor of Minorca.
Held: Such an action could be brought. What foreign law is is a matter of fact to be determined by the provision of evidence, with the court assisting the jury to explain it. An action may not be brought against a judge on a court of record for something done by him in court. He may plead that it was done as such a judge, and that will be a complete defence.

Judges:

Lord Mansfield CJ

Citations:

(1773) 20 St Tr 82, [1775] 1 Copp 161, [1775] 98 ER 1021

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromFabrigas v Mostyn 1773
Minorca was a ceded colony of the British Crown. The Governor, General Mostyn, apparently fearing that Fabrigas would stir up danger for the garrison, committed him to the worst prison on the island, with no bed and only bread and water, and with no . .
See AlsoFabrigas v Mostyn 1746
And as to the excess of damages, the Court were all of opinion, that it was very difficult to interpose with respect to the quantum of damages in actions for any personal wrong. Not that it can be laid down, that in no case of personal injury the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Commonwealth, Personal Injury, Legal Professions

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.277172

Comalco Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Corporation: 1983

(Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory) Hansard was admissible to show what had been said in the Queensland Parliament as a matter of fact, without the need for the consent of Parliament. Blackburn CJ added: ‘I think that the way in which the court complies with Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, and with the law of the privileges of Parliament, is not by refusing to admit evidence of what was said in Parliament, but by refusing to allow the substance of what was said in Parliament to be the subject of any submission or inference.’

Judges:

Blackburn CJ

Citations:

(1983) 50 ACTR 1

Statutes:

Bill of Rights 1689 9

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

CitedPrebble v Television New Zealand Ltd PC 27-Jun-1994
(New Zealand) The plaintiff, an MP, pursued a defamation case. The defendant wished to argue for the truth of what was said, and sought to base his argument on things said in Parliament. The plaintiff responded that this would be a breach of . .
CitedOffice of Government Commerce v Information Commissioner and Another Admn 11-Apr-2008
The Office appealed against decisions ordering it to release information about the gateway reviews for the proposed identity card system, claiming a qualified exemption from disclosure under the 2000 Act.
Held: The decision was set aside for . .
CitedDhir v Saddler QBD 6-Dec-2017
Slander damages reduced for conduct
Claim in slander. The defendant was said, at a church meeting to have accused the client of threatening to slit her throat. The defendant argued that the audience of 80 was not large enough.
Held: ‘the authorities demonstrate that it is the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.266729

Du Toit and Vos v Minister for Welfare and Population Development: 10 Sep 2002

(South African Constitutional Court) Prospective adoptive parents were a same-sex couple who challenged laws preventing them from adopting. The court said: ‘In their current form the impugned provisions exclude from their ambit potential joint adoptive parents who are unmarried, but who are partners in permanent same-sex life partnerships and who would otherwise meet the criteria set out in section 18 of the Child Care Act . . Their exclusion surely defeats the very essence and social purpose of adoption which is to provide the stability, commitment, affection and support important to a child’s development, which can be offered by suitably qualified persons . . Excluding partners in same sex life partnerships from adopting children jointly where they would otherwise be suitable to do so is in conflict with the principle [of the paramountcy of the interests of the child] . . It is clear from the evidence in this case that even though persons such as the applicants are suitable to adopt children jointly and provide them with family care, they cannot do so. The impugned provisions . . thus deprive children of the possibility of a loving and stable family life . . The provisions of the Child Care Act thus fail to accord paramountcy to the best interests of the children.’

Citations:

(2002) 13 BHRC 187, [2002] ZACC 20, CCT 40/01

Links:

Saflii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedIn re P and Others, (Adoption: Unmarried couple) (Northern Ireland); In re G HL 18-Jun-2008
The applicants complained that as an unmarried couple they had been excluded from consideration as adopters.
Held: Northern Ireland legislation had not moved in the same way as it had for other jurisdictions within the UK. The greater . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Constitutional, Human Rights, Discrimination

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.270010

Rex v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, Ex parte Whybrow and Co: 1910

The court considered the ability to sever void sections of statutes from other sections.
Held: Griffiths CJ said: ‘It is contended, on the authority of decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, which are entitled to the greatest respect, that the test is this, that if the court, on a consideration of the whole statute, and rejecting the parts held to be ultra vires, is unable to say that the legislature would have adopted the rest without them, the whole statute must be held invalid. With profound deference I venture to doubt the accuracy of this test. What a man would have done in a state of facts which never existed is a matter of mere speculation, which a man cannot certainly answer for himself, much less for another. I venture to think that a safer test is whether the statute with the invalid portions omitted would be substantially a different law as to the subject matter dealt with by what remains from what it would be with the omitted portions forming part of it.’
Isaacs J said: ‘If good and bad provisions are wrapped up in the same word or expression, the whole must fall. Separation is there from the nature of the case impossible, and as it is imperative to eject the bad – and this can only be done by condemning the word or phrase which contains it – the good must share the same fate.’

Judges:

Griffiths CJ, Isaacs J

Citations:

(1910) 11 CLR 1

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Citing:

CitedThe Employers’ Liability Cases 1908
(US Supreme Court) The court heard together two appeals regarding the range of federal jurisdiction to legislate for the regulation of interstate commerce. The true construction of the federal statute whose constitutionality was in issue was . .
CitedIllinois Central Railroad Co v McKendree 1906
(US Supreme Court) An order of the Secretary of Agriculture purporting to fix a quarantine line under the Cattle Contagious Disease Act (1903), which applied in terms to all shipments, whether interstate or intrastate, was void, notwithstanding that . .

Cited by:

CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Hutchinson; Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith HL 12-Jul-1990
Protesters objected that byelaws which had been made to prevent access to common land, namely Greenham Common were invalid.
Held: The byelaws did prejudice the rights of common. The House was concerned to clarify the test applicable when . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.259760

The Fagernes: CA 1927

Atkin LJ considered whether the islands were a territory of the Crown: ‘What is the territory of the Crown is a matter of which the Court takes judicial notice. The Court has, therefore, to inform itself from the best material available; and on such a matter it may be its duty to obtain its information from the appropriate department of Government. Any definite statement from the proper representative of the Crown as to the territory of the Crown must be treated as conclusive.’

Judges:

Atkin LJ

Citations:

[1927] P 311

Cited by:

CitedChristian and others v The Queen PC 30-Oct-2006
(The Pitcairn Islands) The defendants appealed convictions for assorted sexual offences against underage girls. They denied that the laws under which they were convicted had applied to the Pitcairn Islands.
Held: The appeals against conviction . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.245760

Minquiers and Ecrehos (France v United Kingdom) (1951-1953): ICJ 17 Nov 1953

The Treaty of Calais of 1360 contained a clause confirming that the King of England shall have and hold all the islands which he ‘now holds’

Citations:

[1953] ICJ Rep 47

Links:

ICJ

Cited by:

CitedBarclay and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Others SC 22-Oct-2014
Constitutional Status of Chanel Islands considered
The Court was asked as to the role, if any, of the courts of England and Wales (including the Supreme Court) in the legislative process of one of the Channel Islands. It raised fundamental questions about the constitutional relationship between the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Constitutional

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.228076

Murphy v Attorney General: 1982

(Supreme Court of Ireland) The Supreme Court held that certain taxation provisions were unconstitutional and void. The court rejected an argument that it was for the courts to say whether these statutory provisions should be held to be invalid prospectively or with only limited retrospective effect. The provisions were invalid from the date on which they were enacted. However, the court also held that the plaintiffs’ restitutionary right to recover amounts paid by way of taxes unconstitutionally imposed began with the first year in which they raised their objections. Further, unless other taxpayers had already made tax recovery claims, only the plaintiffs could maintain a claim pursuant to the court’s decision.

Citations:

[1982] IR 241

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedNational Westminster Bank plc v Spectrum Plus Limited and others HL 30-Jun-2005
Former HL decision in Siebe Gorman overruled
The company had become insolvent. The bank had a debenture and claimed that its charge over the book debts had become a fixed charge. The preferential creditors said that the charge was a floating charge and that they took priority.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.228292

Harrison v Bush: 1855

The office of Secretary of State is in theory one and indivisible.
Lord Campbell CJ stated: ‘In practice, to the Secretary of State for the Home Department . . belongs peculiarly the maintenance of the peace within the kingdom, with the superintendence of the administration of justice as far as the Royal prerogative is involved in it.’

Judges:

Lord Campbell CJ

Citations:

(1855) 5 E and B 344, [1855] EngR 41, (1855) 5 El and Bl 344, (1855) 119 ER 509

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

CitedHinchy v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 3-Mar-2005
The applicant had been dependent upon income support, and had then come to receive Disability Living Allowance (DLA). She therefore received additional income support, but the office did not adjust that benefit down when her DLA stopped. The . .
CitedJameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl HL 11-Oct-2006
The House was asked as to the capacity of a limited company to sue for damage to its reputation, where it had no trading activity within the jurisdiction, and as to the extent of the Reynolds defence. The defendants/appellants had published an . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex Parte Northumbria Police Authority CA 18-Nov-1987
The Authority appealed from refusal of judicial review of a circular issued by the respondent as to the supply of Plastic Baton Rounds and CS gas from central resources only. The authority suggested that the circular amounted to permission for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Police, Constitutional

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.223211

Taylor v Attorney General of Queensland: 29 Jun 1917

(High Court of Australia) The 1908 Act provided that, when a bill passed by the Legislative Assembly in two successive sessions had in the same two sessions been rejected by the Legislative Council, it might be submitted by referendum to the electors, and, if affirmed by them, should be presented to the Governor for His Majesty’s assent. Upon receiving such assent, the Bill was to become an Act of Parliament in the same manner as if passed by both Houses of Parliament, and notwithstanding any law to the contrary.
Held: This was a valid and effective Act of Parliament by virtue of the power conferred upon the Legislature of Queensland by S.5 of the Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865. It was further held that there was power to abolish the Legislative Council of Queensland by an Act passed by the Legislative Assembly and affirmed by the electors in accordance with the provisions of the 1908 Act. Barton J ‘The Constitution Act of 1867 provided for all laws passed under it to be enacted ‘by Her Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly in Parliament assembled’, and that the constitution did not recognise the making of laws by any other authority: ‘It is also true that in general the legislation of a body created by and acting under a written charter or constitution is valid only so far as it conforms to the authority conferred by that instrument of government, and that therefore attempted legislation, merely at variance with the charter or constitution, cannot be held an effective law on the ground that the authority conferred by that instrument includes a power to alter or repeal any part of it, if the legislation questioned has to be preceded by a good exercise of such power; that is, if the charter or constitution has not antecedently been so altered within the authority given by that document itself. . . Normally, therefore, in the absence of such a provision as s.5 of the Imperial Act, I should have been prepared to hold that the [1908 Act], which, though it professed to be an amendment of the Constitution Act of 1867, was merely, in view of its provisions, an Act at variance with the constitution, not preceded by a valid extension of the constitutional power, was therefore itself, as it stood, invalid. But in the present case the Imperial provision seems to me to take away the application of the principle I have stated to legislation of the kind which it authorises.’

Judges:

Barton J, Isaacs, Gavan Duffy, Rich and Powers JJ

Citations:

(1917) 23 CLR 457, [1917] HCA 31

Links:

Austlii

Statutes:

Queensland Parliamentary Bills Referendum Act of 1908

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

CitedRegina on the Application of Jackson and others v HM Attorney General CA 16-Feb-2005
The applicant asserted that the 2004 Act was invalid having been passed under the procedure in the 1949 Act, reducing the period by which the House of Lords could delay legislation; the 1949 Act was invalid, being delegated legislation, had used the . .
CitedJackson and others v Attorney General HL 13-Oct-2005
The applicant sought to challenge the 2004 Hunting Act, saying that it had been passed under the provisions of the 1949 Parliament Act which was itself an unlawful extension of the powers given by the 1911 Parliament Act to allow the House of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.222718

Clayton v Heffron: 15 Dec 1960

(High Court of Australia) An Act was proposed to be introduced by the legislature to amend the constitution of New South Wales by abolishing the Legislative Council. There would be required first a vote in favour of that in a referendum. The proposed Act was to be passed under a procedure in s.5B of the New South Wales Constitution Act 1902-1956, whereby legislation could be enacted ultimately without the consent of the Legislative Council. S.5B had been introduced into the New South Wales Constitution by an enactment of the New South Wales legislature under s.5 of the Constitution Act which went: ‘The Legislature shall, subject to the provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, have power to make laws for the peace, welfare and good government of New South Wales in all cases whatsoever.’
Held: The Act was effective.

Judges:

Dixon CJ, McTiernan, Fullagar, Kitto, Taylor, Menzies and Windeyer JJ

Citations:

(1960) 105 CLR 214, [1960] HCA 92

Links:

Austlii

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

CitedRegina on the Application of Jackson and others v HM Attorney General CA 16-Feb-2005
The applicant asserted that the 2004 Act was invalid having been passed under the procedure in the 1949 Act, reducing the period by which the House of Lords could delay legislation; the 1949 Act was invalid, being delegated legislation, had used the . .
CitedJackson and others v Attorney General HL 13-Oct-2005
The applicant sought to challenge the 2004 Hunting Act, saying that it had been passed under the provisions of the 1949 Parliament Act which was itself an unlawful extension of the powers given by the 1911 Parliament Act to allow the House of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.222726

Regina v Foreign Secretary ex parte Indian Association of Alberta: CA 1982

The court traced the transformation of the doctrine of the indivisibility of the crown to the modern docrtrine of divisibility. May LJ: ‘Although at one time it was correct to describe the Crown as one and indivisible, with the development of the Commonwealth this is no longer so. Although there is only one person who is the Sovereign within the British Commonwealth, it is now a truism that in matters of law and government the Queen of the United Kingdom, for example, is entirely independent and distinct from the Queen of Canada. Further, the Crown is a constitutional monarchy and thus when one speaks today, and as was frequently done in the course of the argument on this application, of the Crown ‘in right of Canada’ or of some other territory within the Commonwealth, this is only a short way of referring to the Crown acting through and on the advice of Her Ministers in Canada or in that other territory within the Commonwealth.’

Judges:

May LJ

Citations:

[1982] QB 892, [1982] 2 All ER 118, [1982] 2 WLR 641

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedFitzgibbon v HM Attorney General ChD 9-Feb-2005
The claimant sought declarations that the government of Australia was not being conducted in accordance with the 1900 Act as it should be.
Held: Though the Act was an English Act, the Courts of England now have no jurisdiction over Australia: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.222626

In re P and Others, (Adoption: Unmarried couple) (Northern Ireland); In re G: HL 18 Jun 2008

The applicants complained that as an unmarried couple they had been excluded from consideration as adopters.
Held: Northern Ireland legislation had not moved in the same way as it had for other jurisdictions within the UK. The greater commitment to traditional family structures did not however justify the difference. The rules were unlawful discrimination.
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘the House is free to give, in the interpretation of the 1998 Act, what it considers to be a principled and rational interpretation to the concept of discrimination on grounds of marital status. For the reasons I have given earlier, I would declare that notwithstanding article 14 of the Order, the appellants are entitled to apply to adopt the child.’
He went on to point out that ‘Convention rights’, as defined in section 1 of the 1998 Act, were ‘domestic and not international rights’, and that the duty of domestic courts under section 2 of that Act was to ‘take into account’, rather than to regard themselves as bound by, decisions of the Strasbourg court, but that there were normally ‘good reasons why we should follow the interpretation adopted in Strasbourg’. However, different ‘considerations apply in cases in which Strasbourg has deliberately declined to lay down an interpretation for all member states, as it does when it says the question is within the margin of appreciation’. In such cases, ‘it is for the court in the United Kingdom to interpret [the relevant article or articles of the Convention] and to apply the division between the decision-making powers of courts and Parliament in the way which appears appropriate for the United .Kingdom’. He expanded on this by adding that ‘[t]he margin of appreciation is there for division between the three branches of government according to our principles of the separation of powers’.
Baroness Hale said that ‘lack of marital status is as much a ‘status’ for the purpose of article 14 as is the status of marriage itself.’
and ‘it is clear that the doctrine of the ‘margin of appreciation’ as applied in Strasbourg has no application in domestic law. The Strasbourg court will allow a certain freedom of action to member states, which may mean that the same case will be answered differently in different states (or even in different legal systems within the same state). This is particularly so when dealing with questions of justification, whether for interference in one of the qualified rights, or for a difference in treatment under article 14. National authorities are better able than Strasbourg to assess what restrictions are necessary in the democratic societies they serve. So to that extent the judgment must be one for the national authorities.’
Lord Hope said that even in an area of social and economic policy, falls within the constitutional responsibility of the courts: ‘Cases about discrimination in an area of social policy, which is what this case is, will always be appropriate for judicial scrutiny. The constitutional responsibility in this area of our law resides with the courts. The more contentious the issue is, the greater the risk is that some people will be discriminated against in ways that engage their Convention rights. It is for the courts to see that this does not happen. It is with them that the ultimate safeguard against discrimination rests.’
Orse – In re G (Adoption: Unmarried Couple)

Judges:

Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Mance

Citations:

[2008] UKHL 38, Times 23-Jun-2008, [2008] UKHRR 1181, [2008] Fam Law 977, [2008] 2 FCR 366, [2009] 1 AC 173, [2008] NI 310, [2008] 24 BHRC 650, [2008] 2 FLR 1084, [2008] HRLR 37, [2008] 3 WLR 76

Links:

Bailii, HL

Statutes:

Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (SI 1987/2203(NI 22)) 13, Human Rights Act 1998 1(1), European Convention on Human Rights 14

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Citing:

CitedVon Lorang v Administrator of Austrian Property 1927
Viscount Haldane said: ‘[T]he marriage gives the husband and wife a new legal position from which flow both rights and obligations with regard to the rest of the public. The status so acquired may vary according to the laws of different . .
CitedJames and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Feb-1986
The claimants challenged the 1967 Act, saying that it deprived them of their property rights when lessees were given the power to purchase the freehold reversion.
Held: Article 1 (P1-1) in substance guarantees the right of property. Allowing a . .
CitedPM v The United Kingdom ECHR 19-Jul-2005
A father complained that tax deductions which were granted to married fathers but not to unmarried fathers were discriminatory. He had paid maintenance for his daughter, but was not allowed to set the payments off against his income tax in the way . .
CitedCarson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Reynolds v Same HL 26-May-2005
One claimant said that as a foreign resident pensioner, she had been excluded from the annual uprating of state retirement pension, and that this was an infringement of her human rights. Another complained at the lower levels of job-seeker’s . .
CitedHooper and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 5-May-2005
Widowers claimed that, in denying them benefits which would have been payable to widows, the Secretary of State had acted incompatibly with their rights under article 14 read with article 1 of Protocol 1 and article 8 of the ECHR.
Held: The . .
CitedFrette v France ECHR 26-Feb-2002
A single homosexual man complained that the respondent state had made it impossible for him to adopt a child.
Held: The claim was within the ambit of article 8 as regards respect for family life, but the court dismissed the claim under article . .
CitedDu Toit and Vos v Minister for Welfare and Population Development 10-Sep-2002
(South African Constitutional Court) Prospective adoptive parents were a same-sex couple who challenged laws preventing them from adopting. The court said: ‘In their current form the impugned provisions exclude from their ambit potential joint . .
CitedEB v France ECHR 14-Mar-2007
A homosexual woman complained that she had not been allowed to adopt a child. Her application was rejected by the French administrative court on grounds based substantially upon her sexual orientation.
Held: The provision was an unlawful . .
CitedRegina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 17-Jun-2004
The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious . .
CitedIn re McKerr (Northern Ireland) HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased had been shot by soldiers of the British Army whilst in a car in Northern Ireland. The car was alleged to have ‘run’ a checkpoint. The claimants said the investigation, now 20 years ago, had been inadequate. The claim was brought under . .
CitedRegina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others HL 28-Oct-1999
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for . .
CitedRegina v British Broadcasting Corporation ex parte Pro-life Alliance HL 15-May-2003
The Alliance was a political party seeking to air its party election broadcast. The appellant broadcasters declined to broadcast the film on the grounds that it was offensive, being a graphical discussion of the processes of abortion.
Held: . .
CitedT, Petitioner IHCS 1997
The House discussed the duties of a court in adoption cases: ‘There can be no more fundamental principle in adoption cases than that it is the duty of the court to safeguard and promote the interests of the child. Issues relating to the sexual . .
CitedBellinger v Bellinger HL 10-Apr-2003
Transgender Male to Female not to marry as Female
The parties had gone through a form of marriage, but Mrs B had previously undergone gender re-assignment surgery. Section 11(c) of the 1973 Act required a marriage to be between a male and a female. It was argued that the section was incompatible . .
CitedBurden and Burden v The United Kingdom ECHR 12-Dec-2006
Sisters,Together always not Discriminated Against
(Grand Chamber) The claimants were sisters who had lived together all their lives and owned property jointly. They complained that the Inheritance Tax regime treated them worse than it would a married couple, and was discriminatory.
Held: . .
CitedBelfast City Council v Miss Behavin’ Ltd HL 25-Apr-2007
Belfast had failed to license sex shops. The company sought review of the decision not to grant a licence.
Held: The council’s appeal succeeded. The refusal was not a denial of the company’s human rights: ‘If article 10 and article 1 of . .
CitedMarckx v Belgium ECHR 13-Jun-1979
Recognition of illegitimate children
The complaint related to the manner in which parents were required to adopt their own illegitimate child in order to increase his rights. Under Belgian law, no legal bond between an unmarried mother and her child results from the mere fact of birth. . .
CitedS, Regina (on Application of) v South Yorkshire Police; Regina v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police ex parte Marper HL 22-Jul-2004
Police Retention of Suspects DNA and Fingerprints
The claimants complained that their fingerprints and DNA records taken on arrest had been retained after discharge before trial, saying the retention of the samples infringed their right to private life.
Held: The parts of DNA used for testing . .
CitedKarner v Austria ECHR 24-Jul-2003
A surviving same-sex partner sought a right of succession to a tenancy (of their previously shared flat). Interveners ‘pointed out that a growing number of national courts in European and other democratic societies require equal treatment of . .
CitedPretty v The United Kingdom ECHR 29-Apr-2002
Right to Life Did Not include Right to Death
The applicant was paralysed and suffered a degenerative condition. She wanted her husband to be allowed to assist her suicide by accompanying her to Switzerland. English law would not excuse such behaviour. She argued that the right to die is not . .
CitedGhaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
CitedHandyside v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Dec-1976
Freedom of Expression is Fundamental to Society
The appellant had published a ‘Little Red Schoolbook’. He was convicted under the 1959 and 1964 Acts on the basis that the book was obscene, it tending to deprave and corrupt its target audience, children. The book claimed that it was intended to . .

Cited by:

CitedAge UK, Regina (On the Application of) v Attorney General Admn 25-Sep-2009
Age UK challenged the implementation by the UK of the Directive insofar as it established a default retirement age (DRA) at 65.
Held: The claim failed. The decision to adopt a DRA was not a disproportionate way of giving effect to the social . .
CitedAXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SCS 8-Jan-2010
The claimant sought to challenge the validity of the 2009 Act by judicial review. The Act would make their insured and themselves liable to very substantial unanticipated claims for damages for pleural plaques which would not previousl or otherwise . .
CitedJohns and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Derby City Council and Another Admn 28-Feb-2011
The claimants had acted as foster carers for several years, but challenged a potential decision to discontinue that when, as committed Christians, they refused to sign to agree to treat without differentiation any child brought to them who might be . .
CitedNicklinson v Ministry of Justice and Others QBD 12-Mar-2012
The claimant suffered locked-in syndrome and sought relief in a form which would allow others to assist him in committing suicide. The court considered whether the case should be allowed to proceed rather than to be struck out as hopeless.
CitedMoohan and Another v The Lord Advocate SC 17-Dec-2014
The petitioners, convicted serving prisoners, had sought judicial review of the refusal to allow them to vote in the Scottish Referendum on Independence. The request had been refused in the Outer and Inner Houses.
Held: (Kerr, Wilson JJSC . .
CitedMathieson v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 8-Jul-2015
The claimant a boy of three in receipt of disability living allowance (‘DLA’) challenged (through his parents) the withdrawal of that benefit whilst he was in hospital for a period of more than 12 weeks. He had since died.
Held: The appeal . .
CitedNicklinson and Another, Regina (on The Application of) SC 25-Jun-2014
Criminality of Assisting Suicide not Infringing
The court was asked: ‘whether the present state of the law of England and Wales relating to assisting suicide infringes the European Convention on Human Rights, and whether the code published by the Director of Public Prosecutions relating to . .
CitedSG and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 18-Mar-2015
The court was asked whether it was lawful for the Secretary of State to make subordinate legislation imposing a cap on the amount of welfare benefits which can be received by claimants in non-working households, equivalent to the net median earnings . .
CitedGaughran v Chief Constable of The Police Service of Northern Ireland (Northern Ireland) SC 13-May-2015
The court was asked as to to the right of the Police Service of Northern Ireland to retain personal information and data lawfully obtained from the appellant following his arrest for the offence of driving with excess alcohol.
Held: The appeal . .
CitedSteinfeld and Another v Secretary of State for Education CA 21-Feb-2017
Hetero Partnerships – wait and see proportionate
The claimants, a heterosexual couple complained that their inability to have a civil partnership was an unlawful discrimination against them and a denial of their Article 8 rights. The argument that the appellants’ case did not come within the ambit . .
CitedSteinfeld and Keidan, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for International Development (In Substitution for The Home Secretary and The Education Secretary) SC 27-Jun-2018
The applicants, an heterosexual couple wished to enter into a civil partnership under the 2004 Act, rather than a marriage. They complained that had they been a same sex couple they would have had that choice under the 2013 Act.
Held: The . .
CitedBrewster, Re Application for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) SC 8-Feb-2017
Survivor of unmarried partner entitled to pension
The claimant appealed against the rejection of her claim to the survivor’s pension after the death of her longstanding partner, even though they had not been married. The rules said that she had to have been nominated by her partner, but he had not . .
CitedTigere, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills SC 29-Jul-2015
After increasing university fees, the student loan system was part funded by the government. They introduced limits to the availability of such loans, and a student must have been lawfully ordinarily resident in the UK for three years before the day . .
CitedMichalak v General Medical Council and Others SC 1-Nov-2017
Dr M had successfully challenged her dismissal and recovered damages for unfair dismissal and race discrimination. In the interim, Her employer HA had reported the dismissal to the respondent who continued their proceedings despite the decision in . .
CitedHuman Rights Commission for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland : Abortion) SC 7-Jun-2018
The Commission challenged the compatibility of the NI law relating to banning nearly all abortions with Human Rights Law. It now challenged a decision that it did not have standing to bring the case.
Held: (Lady Hale, Lord Kerr and Lord Wilson . .
CitedMcLaughlin, Re Judicial Review SC 30-Aug-2018
The applicant a differently sexed couple sought to marry under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, but complained that they would lose the benefits of widowed parent’s allowance. Parliament had decided to delay such rules to allow assessment of reaction . .
CitedMcLaughlin, Re Judicial Review SC 30-Aug-2018
The applicant a differently sexed couple sought to marry under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, but complained that they would lose the benefits of widowed parent’s allowance. Parliament had decided to delay such rules to allow assessment of reaction . .
CitedCrowter and Others, Regina (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Health And Social Care Admn 23-Sep-2021
Foetus has no Established Human Rights
The Claimants sought a declaration that section 1(1)(d) of the Abortion Act 1967, as amended, is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’), as well as some other remedies. The claimant had Down’s Syndrome, and complained the . .
CitedDA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 15-May-2019
Several lone parents challenged the benefits cap, saying that it was discriminatory.
Held: (Hale, Kerr LL dissenting) The parents’ appeals failed. The legislation had a clear impact on lone parents and their children. The intention was to . .
CitedDA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 15-May-2019
Several lone parents challenged the benefits cap, saying that it was discriminatory.
Held: (Hale, Kerr LL dissenting) The parents’ appeals failed. The legislation had a clear impact on lone parents and their children. The intention was to . .
CitedRR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 13-Nov-2019
Housing benefit regulations had been found unlawful and were amended. The Court now considered what payments should have been made before the amendments came into effect.
Held: The appeal was allowed, and RR’s housing benefit entitlement is to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption, Human Rights, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.269988

Regina v Lord Chancellor ex parte Lightfoot: Admn 31 Jul 1998

The applicant wanted to present a petition so as to obtain a declaration of bankruptcy from the court but, being in debt to the tune of nearly pounds 60,000, she could not afford the deposit required by the court of pounds 250.
Held: The claim failed. There was no constitutional right for a debtor to petition the court to achieve his or her own bankruptcy. However, the more fundamental the right affected by a Regulation, the less likely it was that Parliament would have authorised its impairment and the greater would be the court’s need to be satisfied that such indeed was Parliament’s true intention.

Judges:

Simn Brown LJ

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Admin 827, [2000] QB 597

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedA, K, M, Q and G v HM Treasury Admn 24-Apr-2008
The applicants were suspected of terrorist associations. Their bank accounts and similar had been frozen. They challenged the Order in Council under which the orders had been made without an opportunity for parliamentary challenge or approval.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Constitutional

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.138948

Cassell and Co Ltd v Broome (No 2): HL 24 Feb 1972

Their Lordships varied an order for costs already made by the House in circumstances where the parties had not had a fair opportunity to address argument on the point. As the ultimate court of appeal, the House has power to correct any injustice caused by an earlier order. There is no relevant statutory limitation on the jurisdiction of the House in this regard and therefore its inherent jurisdiction remains unfettered. There is a constitutional right to freedom of expression in England.

Judges:

Lord Kilbrandon

Citations:

[1972] AC 1136

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoCassell and Co Ltd v Broome and Another CA 24-Mar-1971
. .
See AlsoCassell and Co Ltd v Broome and Another HL 23-Feb-1972
Exemplary Damages Award in Defamation
The plaintiff had been awarded damages for defamation. The defendants pleaded justification. Before the trial the plaintiff gave notice that he wanted additional, exemplary, damages. The trial judge said that such a claim had to have been pleaded. . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) HL 15-Jan-1999
A petition was brought to request that a judgment of the House be set aside because the wife of one their lordships, Lord Hoffmann, was as an unpaid director of a subsidiary of Amnesty International which had in turn been involved in a campaign . .
CitedReynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
Fair Coment on Political Activities
The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Natural Justice, Costs

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.183298

Harrikissoon v Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago: PC 1980

(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant teacher alleged that he had been transferred from one school to another without proper notice and as punishment. The appellant instead of following a laid out procedure which would have eventually led to a decision by the Teaching Service Commission, sued under the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago for a declaration of breach of his human rights.
Held: The Board pointed out the danger of allowing the value of the right to apply to the High Court for redress for contravention of his fundamental rights and freedoms which is conferred upon the individual by section [14] of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago to become debased by failure by the courts to dispose summarily of applications that are plainly frivolous or vexatious or are otherwise an abuse of process of the court.
Lord Diplock said: ‘One of the grounds on which both the High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s claim was because they regarded themselves as precluded from adjudicating upon it by section 102(4) of the Constitution which provides: ‘The question whether – (a) A Commission to which this section applies had validly performed any function vested in it by or under this Constitution . . shall not be inquired into in any court.’ The ouster of the court’s jurisdiction effected by this section is in terms absolute. In their Lordships’ view it is clearly wide enough to deprive all courts of jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to the validity of an order of transfer on either of the grounds alleged by the appellant in the instant case; and that is sufficient to support the dismissal of the appellant’s claim on this ground also.
In all the judgments below, however, there is considerable discussion of recent English cases dealing with ‘ouster of jurisdiction clauses’ contained in Acts of Parliament. Section 102(4) does not form part of an Act of Parliament; it is part of the Constitution itself. Their Lordships do not think that the instant appeal provides an appropriate occasion for considering whether section 102(4) of the Constitution, despite its unqualified language, is nevertheless subject to the same limited kind of implicit exception as was held by the House of Lords in Anisminic Ltd. V. Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 A.C. 147 to apply to an ouster of jurisdiction clause in very similar terms contained in an Act of Parliament. This question is best left to be decided in some future case if one should arise, in which the facts provide a concrete example of the kind of circumstances that were discussed in the judgments in the Anisminic case. The facts in the instant appeal do not. The appeal is dismissed with costs.’

Judges:

Lord Diplock

Citations:

[1980] AC 265

Cited by:

CitedAlleyne-Forte v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago and others PC 20-Oct-1997
(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant had parked his car away from the kerb, and it had been towed away under the regulations. He challenged the validity of the regulations, which charged a high fee for storage and restoration, claiming that this . .
CitedFrater v The Queen (Note) PC 1981
(Trinidad and Tobago) Similar vigilance should be observed as has been requested in Harrikissoon to see that claims made by appellants to be entitled to appeal as of right under section 110(1)(c) are not granted unless they do involve a genuinely . .
CitedLumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
CitedAttorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v Ramanoop PC 23-Mar-2005
(Trinidad and Tobago) A police officer had unjustifiably roughed up, arrested, taken to the police station and locked up Mr Ramanoop, who now sought constitutional redress, including exemplary damages. He did not claim damages for the nominate torts . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Commonwealth

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.181858

Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand v Attorney General: 1982

(Court of Appeal of New Zealand) Woodhouse P said: ‘the principle of public access to the Courts is an essential element in our system. Nor are the reasons in the slightest degree difficult to find. The Judges speak and act on behalf of the community. They necessarily exercise great power in order to discharge heavy responsibilities. The fact that they do it under the eyes of their fellow citizens means that they must provide daily and public assurance that so far as they can manage it what they do is done efficiently if possible, with human understanding it may be hoped, but certainly by a fair and balanced application of the law to the facts as they really appear to be. Nor is it simply a matter of providing just answers for individual cases, important though that always will be. It is a matter as well of maintaining a system of justice which requires that the judiciary will be seen day by day attempting to grapple in the same even fashion with the whole generality of cases. To the extent that public confidence is then given in return so may the process may be regarded as fulfilling its purposes.’

Judges:

Woodhouse P

Citations:

[1982] 1 NZLR 120

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedGuardian News and Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court CA 3-Apr-2012
The newspaper applied for leave to access documents referred to but not released during the course of extradition proceedings in open court.
Held: The application was to be allowed. Though extradition proceedings were not governed by the Civil . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.452491

In Re Boaler: CA 1915

The court was asked whether the 1896 Act which permitted a court to make an order that a person could not institute proceedings without the leave of the court, applied to the institution of criminal proceedings.
Held: It did not. Scrutton J said: ‘In the case of this statute the legislature clearly intends to interfere with some rights of persons, and uses words capable of extension to rights of litigation in criminal matters, but in my opinion more suitable to the subject-matter of rights of litigation in civil matters only. In my view, looking at the enacting part of the statute only, the presumption against the interference with the vital rights and liberties of the subject entitles, even compels, me to limit the words to the meaning which effects the least interference with those rights.’ but ‘The object of the court is, from the words used, construed in reference to the subject-matter in which they are used, to get at the intention of the legislature and give effect to it. When the legislature has used general words capable of a larger and a narrower meaning, those words may be restricted by innumerable presumptions all designed to give effect to the reasonable intent of the legislature.’
‘One of the valuable rights of every subject of the King is to appeal to the King in his Courts if he alleges that a civil wrong has been done to him, or if he alleges that a wrong punishable criminally has been done to him, or has been committed by another subject of the King. This right is sometimes abused and it is, of course, quite competent to Parliament to deprive any subject of the King of it either absolutely or in part. But the language of any such statute should be jealously watched by the Courts, and should not be extended beyond its least onerous meaning unless clear words are used to justify such extension.’

Judges:

Scrutton J

Citations:

[1915] KB 21

Statutes:

Vexatious Actions Act 1896

Cited by:

CitedA, K, M, Q and G v HM Treasury Admn 24-Apr-2008
The applicants were suspected of terrorist associations. Their bank accounts and similar had been frozen. They challenged the Order in Council under which the orders had been made without an opportunity for parliamentary challenge or approval.
CitedChester v Bateson 1920
A Regulation brought in under the 1914 Act prohibited the bringing of possession proceedings against a munitions worker without the consent of the Minister.
Held: The prohibition was unlawful. It was a grave invasion of the rights of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Constitutional

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.267159

McMonagle v Westminster City Council: HL 1989

The House treated words as surplusage in a statute which contained criminal sanctions in order to avoid the substantial frustration of the object of the Act. Words in an Act are not to be rendered ‘insensible, absurd or ineffective to achieve its evident purpose.’
Lord Bridge said: ‘It is a canon of construction that, if it be possible, effect must be given to every word of an Act of Parliament or other document; but that, if there be a word or a phrase therein to which no sensible meaning can be given, it must be eliminated.’
and ‘I recognise that this is a strong course to take in construing a statute and one which imputes an unusual degree of ineptitude to the draftsman . . the presumption that every word in a statute must be given some effective meaning is a strong one, but the courts have on occasion been driven to disregard particular words or phrases when, by giving effect to them, the operation of the statute would be rendered insensible, absurd or ineffective to achieve its evident purpose.’

Judges:

Lord Bridge

Citations:

[1990] 2 AC 716, [1990] 1 All ER 993

Statutes:

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 Sch 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedStone v Yeovil Corporation 1876
Brett J said: ‘It is a canon of construction that, if it be possible, effect must be given to every word of an Act of Parliament or other document; but that, if there be a word or phrase therein to which no sensible meaning can be given, it must be . .

Cited by:

CitedHaw, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another CA 8-May-2006
The applicant had demonstrated continuously against the war in Iraq from the pavement outside the House of Commons. The respondent sought an order for his removal under the law preventing demonstrations near Parliament without consent which was . .
CitedBarratt Homes Ltd v Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig (Welsh Water) SC 9-Dec-2009
The developers wanted to construct their private sewer to the public sewer at a point convenient to them. The water company said a connection at the point proposed would overload the sewer, and refused. The developer claimed that it had the right to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.242611

Caledonian Railway Company v North British Railway Company: HL 1881

The House considered the principle of the literal construction of a statute: ‘The more literal construction ought not to prevail, if . . it is opposed to the intentions of the Legislature, as apparent by the statute; and if the words are sufficiently flexible to admit of some other construction by which that intention will be better effectuated.’

Judges:

Lord Selborne

Citations:

(1881) 6 AC 114

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedNational Grid Gas Plc, Regina (on the Application of) v The Environment Agency Admn 17-May-2006
The claimant sought a judicial review of the decision to hold them responsible for necessary works of remediation. They were statutory successors to British Gas Corporation.
Held: The legislation clearly attempted to hold the contaminator . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Constitutional

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.242434

Great Western Railway Co v Mostyn (Owners): HL 1928

The House considered the application of a case precedent where they had been uunable to extract a binding ratio decidendi.
Held: A ratio decidendi cannot be created by aggregating views of minority judges and views of majority judges to secure a numerical majority on a particular issue. Viscount Dunedin (dissenting) said as to the ratio of the case referred to: ‘Now, when any tribunal is bound by the judgment of another Court, either superior or co-ordinate, it is, of course, bound by the judgment itself. And if from the opinions delivered it is clear – as is the case in most instances – what the ratio decidendi was which led to the judgment, then that ratio decidendi is also binding. But it is not clear, then I do not think it is part of the tribunal’s duty to spell out with great difficulty a ratio decidendi in order to be bound by it. That is what the Court of Appeal has done here. With great hesitation they have added the opinion of Lord Hatherley to that of Lord Cairns and then, with still greater difficulty, that of Lord Blackburn, and so have secured what they think was a majority in favour of Lord Cairns’s very clear view. I do not think that the respect which they hold and have expressed for the judgments of your Lordships’ House compelled them to go through this difficult and most unsatisfactory performance.’ and ‘[Y]ou cannot extract from the judgments in Wear v Adamson such a ratio decidendi as is binding. That, however, is far from wiping Wear v Adamson off the slate. It remains for two purposes. First, for the judgment itself and, second, for the opinions of the noble Lords, which are entitled to the greatest respect. Now, the judgment is binding. What, therefore, I think is our duty on this occasion is to consider the statute for ourselves in the light of the opinions, diverging as they are, and to give an interpretation; but that interpretation must necessarily be one which would not, if it applied to the facts of Wear v Adamson, lead to a different result.’

Judges:

Viscount Haldane, Viscount Dunedin

Citations:

[1928] AC 57, 97 LJP8, 138 LT 403

Statutes:

Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 74

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ExaminedRiver Wear Commissioners v Adamson HL 1877
It was not necessary for there to be an ambiguity in a statutory provision for a court to be allowed to look at the surrounding circumstances.
As to the Golden Rule of interpretation: ‘It is to be borne in mind that the office of the judge is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Constitutional

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.242136

Attorney-General v Great Southern and Western Rly Co of Ireland: HL 1925

The House considered the effect on the Irish Free State of a liability undertaken by the United Kingdom Government before the formation of the Irish Free State.
Held: No suit can be maintained against the Crown in right of Great Britain or of a dominion or colony in respect of a liability unless it is to be satisfied out of the British exchequer or the treasury of that dominion or colony. The question whether a suit against the Crown should be brought against it in right of one Dominion, Possession, or jurisdiction rather than another depends upon the exchequer or treasury out of which the liability or claim put in suit would be discharged or satisfied. The responsibility of producing the fund out of which the obligation can be met, depends upon provision being made by the Parliaments of the States, if they choose-and only if they choose-so to provide.

Judges:

Viscount Haldane, Lord Phillimore

Citations:

[1925] AC 754

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedManuel and Others v Attorney-General; Noltcho and Others v Attorney-General ChD 7-May-1982
The plaintiffs were Indian Chiefs from Canada. They complained that the 1982 Act which granted independence to Canada, had been passed without their consent, which they said was required. They feared the loss of rights embedded by historical . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.241377

Leach v Rex: HL 1912

Save insofar as they are clearly and unambiguously intended to do so, statutes should not be construed so as to make alterations in the common law.

Citations:

[1912] AC 305

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAttorney-General (ex relatione Yorkshire Derwent Trust Ltd) v Brotherton HL 5-Dec-1991
The appellants owned land through which flowed the river Derwent. Attempts were to be made to restore the river to navigability. The appellants denied that any public rights existed over the river.
Held: The 1932 Act could only give rise to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Crime

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.214614

Lewisham Borough Council v Roberts: CA 1949

The council sought to exercise its powers under the Act to take possession of part of the defendant’s property.
Held: Denning LJ said: ‘It is necessary to consider the nature of the power to requisition land. It is only a power to take possession of land. It is not a power to acquire any estate or interest in any land . . Once possession is taken the Crown can exercise all the powers incident to possession, such as to license other people to use the premises; . . but it cannot grant a lease or create any legal interest in the land in favour of any other person, because it has itself no estate in the land out of which to carve any interest.’
Jenkins J rejected an argument that the principle was one of delegation: ‘I think this contention is based on a misconception of the relationship between a minister and the officials in his department. A minister must perforce, from the necessity of the case, act through his departmental officials, and where as in the Defence Regulations now under consideration functions are expressed to be committed to a minister, those functions must, as a matter of necessary implication, be exercisable by the minister either personally or through his departmental officials; and acts done in exercise of those functions are equally acts of the minister whether they are done by him personally, or through his departmental officials, as in practice, except in matters of the very first importance, they almost invariably would be done. No question of agency or delegation . . seems to me to arise at all.’

Judges:

Denning LJ

Citations:

[1949] 2 KB 608

Statutes:

Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust HL 24-Jun-1999
The claimant sought to oblige the respondent to repair his flat under the 1988 Act. The respondent replied that the arrangement was a licence only, and not protected under the Act.
Held: The housing association had a temporary licence to . .
CitedCastle v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 24-Jan-2014
The defendant appealed from his conviction for having driven in excess of a variable speed limit on the motorway. He said that the Order under which the speed limit had been imposed was irregular. . .
CitedBourgass and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 29-Jul-2015
The Court considered the procedures when a prisoner is kept in solitary confinement, otherwise described as ‘segregation’ or ‘removal from association’, and principally whether decisions to keep the appellants in segregation for substantial periods . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Land, Constitutional

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.199979

Thomas v Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago: PC 1982

The court deprecated the ‘spoils’ system which operated within the post office.
Lord Diplock set out the purposeof the constitutional commission: ‘The whole purpose of Chapter VIII of the Constitution which bears the rubric ‘The Public Service’ is to insulate members of the civil service, the teaching service and the police service in Trinidad and Tobago from political influence exercised directly upon them by the government of the day. The means adopted for doing this was to vest in autonomous commissions, to the exclusion of any other person or authority, power to make appointments to the relevant service, promotions and transfers within the service and power to remove and exercise disciplinary control over members of the service. These autonomous commissions, although public authorities, are excluded by section 105(4)(c) from forming part of the service of the Crown.’

Judges:

Lord Diplock

Citations:

[1982] AC 113, (1981) 32 WIR 375, [1981] 3 WLR 601

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Cited by:

CitedPerch, Dennie and Commissiong v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago PC 20-Feb-2003
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The postal system had been transferred to a company. Employees complained that they had been public servants and had lost privileges associated with that employment, and provisions of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Constitutional, Police

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.186584

Wright v Hale: 23 Nov 1860

When considering the retrospective effects of an Act, ‘where the enactment deals with procedure only, unless the contrary is expressed, the enactment applies to all actions, whether commenced before or after the passing of the Act.’

Judges:

Wilde B

Citations:

(1860) 6 H and N 227, [1860] EngR 1191, (1860) 6 H and N 227, (1860) 158 ER 94

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedWilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) HL 10-Jul-2003
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent lender of its . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.184441

Pillai v Comptroller of Income Tax: PC 1970

The role of the Privy Council is purely appellate, and the court will not rule on points of law which had not been raised in the court from which the appeal lay.

Citations:

[1970] AC 1124

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedKemper Reinsurance Company v The Minister of Finance and others PC 5-May-1998
(Bermuda) An appeal Court did have jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the discharge of leave to apply for certiorari order, since this was outside scope of the rule in Lane v Esdaille.
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘Nevertheless, the limited nature . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.182906

Scott v Regina: 2004

Participation in religious prayers were required of soldiers during routine parades at a Canadian Forces base. The soldiers were preceded by an order to remove headdress. The soldier had no religious convictions, had (after having previously raised with his superior his concerns about being made to participate in a prayer service in which he did not believe) refused to remove his headdress (but had evidently continued to stand on parade) and was being charged simply with that refusal.
Held: The order conflicted with paragraph 2(a) of the Charter: ‘The order that was given . . was to show ‘respect’ for what was being done and not mere passive toleration. That is to say, it was designed to constrain him to make a public gesture of approval for a religious ceremony in which he did not believe. .
The fact that the practice of pronouncing prayers at parades and requiring some form of public assent thereto has been hallowed by a tradition of many years in the military as well as other circles cannot justify a breach of the appellant’s Charter rights. We emphasize that what was required of the appellant was active participation in the religious ceremony with which he disagreed. The question of enforced passive participation by mere presence is an entirely different issue and one that we do not reach today.’

Citations:

[2004] 123 CRR (2d) 371

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Cited by:

ApprovedCommodore Royal Bahamas Defence Force and Others v Laramore PC 8-May-2017
Soldier’s right not to attend religious service
(The Bahamas) Parties challenged the removal of the right of service members to be excused attendance of the religious elements of force parades.
Held: The Muslim petty officer had been hindered in the exercise of his constitutional right to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Armed Forces

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.582140

Banton v Alcoa Minerals of Jamaica Inc: 1971

Citations:

(1971) 17 WIR 275

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Cited by:

CitedCommodore Royal Bahamas Defence Force and Others v Laramore PC 8-May-2017
Soldier’s right not to attend religious service
(The Bahamas) Parties challenged the removal of the right of service members to be excused attendance of the religious elements of force parades.
Held: The Muslim petty officer had been hindered in the exercise of his constitutional right to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.582137

Hope v New Guyana Ltd: 1979

Citations:

(1979) 26 WIR 233

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Cited by:

CitedCommodore Royal Bahamas Defence Force and Others v Laramore PC 8-May-2017
Soldier’s right not to attend religious service
(The Bahamas) Parties challenged the removal of the right of service members to be excused attendance of the religious elements of force parades.
Held: The Muslim petty officer had been hindered in the exercise of his constitutional right to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.582138

Regina v Big M Drug Mart: 1985

Supreme Court of Canada – A company was charged with unlawfully carrying on the sale of goods on a Sunday contrary to the Lord’s Day Act. It challenged the legislation. The freedom affected was that of persons prevented by the Act from working on a Sunday.
Held: This was a relevant restriction on the company.
Dickson J said: ‘Freedom can primarily be characterized by the absence of coercion or constraint. If a person is compelled by the state or the will of another to a course of action or inaction which he would not otherwise have chosen, he is not acting of his own volition and he cannot be said to be truly free. One of the major purposes of the Charter is to protect, within reason, from compulsion or restraint. Coercion includes not only such blatant forms of compulsion as direct commands to act or refrain from acting on pain of sanction, coercion includes indirect forms of control which determine or limit alternative courses of conduct available to others.’

Judges:

Dickson J

Citations:

(1985) 1 RCS 295

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Cited by:

CitedCommodore Royal Bahamas Defence Force and Others v Laramore PC 8-May-2017
Soldier’s right not to attend religious service
(The Bahamas) Parties challenged the removal of the right of service members to be excused attendance of the religious elements of force parades.
Held: The Muslim petty officer had been hindered in the exercise of his constitutional right to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.582139

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Ex parte Muboyayi: CA 1992

Lord Donaldson of Lyminton MR said: ‘Chapters 39 and 40 of Magna Carta provide:
No freeman shall be arrested or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or in any way destroyed, neither will we set forth against him or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers and by the law of the land.
To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay right or justice.
The duty of the courts is to uphold this classic statement of the rule of law and if, in particular circumstances, a writ of habeas corpus is the appropriate procedure for doing so, it is wholly immaterial that the practical effect may be the same as enjoining the Crown.’
and ‘The great writ of habeas corpus has over the centuries been a flexible remedy adaptable to changing circumstances.’

Judges:

Lord Donaldson of Lyminton MR

Citations:

[1992] 2 QB 244

Statutes:

Magna Carta

Constitutional

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.470606

Case XXXV 23 El Dyer, 275, 177 14 El Cap 3 13 El Cap 3 Dyer, 128 Licence Dyer, 62 Forfeiture, Patents, Authority, Revocation 1 And 95 Moor 109 Poph 18 7 Co 11 B Dyer, 276 1 Leon 9, 10 Moor 779 4 Leon 140 2 Roll Rep 13: 1220

The King licenses A. to go beyond sea for a certain time ; after this time is expired, A. is commanded under. the privy seal, upon his allegance to return into England ; he does not obey : his goods, chattels and lands are seisetl into thc King’s hands for this contempt : resolved by all the judges of England, that if A. in this case ; has a manor where there are copyholds ; and timber fit to be felled each season that the King may grant the copyhold, and sell the timber so fit to be felled. If the King makes that the two stewards to keep courts there : ne of them by himself, although with the consent of the other, can neither keep courts nor grant copies ; for they have a joint power. In this case, the King’s grant, quanidiu in manibus nostris fore contigerit, is good ; and such patentee may keep courts in his own name, grant copies ; and sell seasonable timber.

Citations:

[1220] EngR 341, (1220-1623) Jenk 246, (1220) 145 ER 174 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Intellectual Property, Constitutional

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.461253

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Rajinder Kaur: CA 1987

The court considered a provision requiring refusal of leave to enter if there was no entry clearance.
Held: Such a mandatory rule was intra vires, the Secretary of State retaining a discretion outside the 1971 Act. Glidewell LJ said: ‘immigration was formerly covered by the royal prerogative and it was a matter which lay entirely within the exercise of that prerogative. Much of the prerogative powers vested in the Crown in this field have now been superseded by a statute but there remains-and this is what the royal prerogative is-a residual power in the Crown, through Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for Home Affairs, to exercise such residual power as is necessary for the proper control of immigration.
In my view, the exercise of discretion in relation to leave to enter outside the rules is an exercise of the remaining part of that prerogative power’

Judges:

Glidewell LJ, Schiemann J

Citations:

[1987] Imm AR 278

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

DisapprovedMunir and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 18-Jul-2012
The claimants were subject to deportation, but had settled here and begun a family. An earlier concession would have allowed him to stay, but it was withdrawn. The court was now asked whether statements by the Secretary of State of her policy as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Constitutional

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.462963

Case XLIII 2 H 7, 6 Patents, Pardons, Non Obstante: 1220

In cases of the King’s patents with non obstante for the shrievalty of any county, in fee, tail, or for life ; or for the exportation of wool, or for homicide ; although there are statutes which ordain such patents to be void, yet, with a clause of non obstante they are good, and to be allowed : and although the statutes say that such patents shall be void, although they have a clause with non obstante ; yet a patent of such things with words of non obstante any clause derogating from the non obstante will make the patent good. The reason of the law is, the King, by his royalty is trusted with the government, pardons and publick business: particular cases may happen which deserve remission, upon consideration of circumstances.

Citations:

[1220] EngR 267, (1220-1623) Jenk 173, (1220) 145 ER 113 (E)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Constitutional

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.461179

Sirros v Moore: CA 1974

Lord Denning MR discussed the immunity of judges from suit: ‘Ever since the year 1613, if not before, it has been accepted in our law that no action is maintainable against a judge for anything said or done by him in the exercise of a jurisdiction which belongs to him. The words which he speaks are protected by an absolute privilege. The orders which he gives, and the sentences which he imposes, cannot be made the subject of civil proceedings against him. No matter that the judge was under some gross error or ignorance, or was actuated by envy, hatred and malice, and all uncharitableness, he is not liable to an action. The remedy of the party aggrieved is to appeal to a Court of Appeal or to apply for habeas corpus, or a writ of error or certiorari, or to take some such step to reverse his ruling. Of course, if the judge has accepted bribes or been in the least degree corrupt, or has perverted the course of justice, he can be punished in the criminal courts. That apart, however, a judge is not liable to an action for damages. The reason is not because the judge has any privilege to make mistakes or to do wrong. It is so that he should be able to do his duty with complete independence and free from fear . . These words apply not only to the judges of the superior courts, but to judges of all ranks, high or low.’ However the doctrine of judicial immunity does not apply: ‘if it be shown that [a judge] was not acting judicially, knowing that he had no jurisdiction to do it.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1975] QB 118, [1974] 3 All ER 776

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Constitutional, Legal Professions

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.452169

Burdett, Bart v The Right Honourable Charles Abbot: CA 22 Apr 1812

Citations:

[1812] EngR 191, (1812) 4 Taunt 401, (1812) 128 ER 384

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromSir Francis Burdett, Bart v The Right Hon Charles Abbot KBD 1811
Speaker’s Powers to Arrest House Members
To an action of trespass against the Speaker of the House of Commons for forcibly, and, with the assistance of armed soldiers, breaking into the messuage of the plaintiff (the outer door being shut and fastened,) and arresting him there, and taking . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromBurdett (Bart) v Abbot (Speaker, House of Commons); And Burdett (Bart) Colman (Sergeant At Arms) PC 2-Jul-1817
To an action of trespass against the Speaker of the House of Commons forcibly and with the assistance of armed soldiers, breaking into the messuage of the Plainttiff (the outer door being shut and fastened), and arresting him there, and taking him . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.338677

The Wensleydale Peerage: HL 22 Feb 1856

Sir James Parke, a distinguished judge of the Court of the Exchequer, was created a Life Peer but the House of Lords refused to allow him to sit and vote in the House because, they decided, that as the law then stood, the creation of Life Peers was not within the Crown’s prerogative powers.

Citations:

[1856] EngR 294, (1856) 5 HLC 958, (1856) 10 ER 1181

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedViscountess Rhondda’s Claim HL 1922
(Committee of Privileges of the House of Lords) Viscountess Rhondda asserted a right to sit in the House of Lords as a member, relying on the 1919 Act.
Held: It is incorrect for a court to draw conclusions from such elements of the . .
CitedMereworth v Ministry of Justice ChD 23-May-2011
The claimant’s father had been granted the hereditary title of Baron of Mereworth. The claimant having inherited the title objected to the refusal to issue to him a writ of summons to sit in the House of Lords.
Held: The claim was struck out . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.291049

Burdett (Bart) v Abbot (Speaker, House of Commons); And Burdett (Bart) Colman (Sergeant At Arms): PC 2 Jul 1817

To an action of trespass against the Speaker of the House of Commons forcibly and with the assistance of armed soldiers, breaking into the messuage of the Plainttiff (the outer door being shut and fastened), and arresting him there, and taking him to the Tower of London, and imprisoning there : it is a legal justification to plead that a Parliament was held which was sitting during the period of the trespasses complained of : that the Plaintiff was a member of the House of Commons : and that the House having resolved, ‘that a certain letter, etc. in Cobbett’s Weekly Register was a libellous and scandalous paper, reflecting on the just rights and privileges of the House, and that the Plaintiff, who had admitted that the said Ietter, etc. was printed by his authority, had been thereby guilty of a breach of the privileges of that House ; and having ordered that, for his said offence, he should be committed to the Tower, and that the Speaker should issue his warrant accordingly ; the Defendant as Speaker, in execution of the said order, issued his warrant to the Serjeant at Arms, to
whom the execution of such warrant belonged, to arrest the plaintiff and to commit him to the custody of the Lieutenant of the Tower : and issued another warrant to the Lieutenant of the Tower to receive and detain the Plaintiff in custody during the pleasure of the House ; by virtue of which first warrant the Serjeant at Arms went to the messuage of the Plaintiff,
where he then was, to execute it; and because the outer door was fastened, and he could not enter, after audible notification of his purpose and demand made of admission, he, by the assistance of the said soldiers, broke and entered the Plaintiff’s messuage, and arrested and conveyed him to the Tower, where he was received and detained in custody under the other warrant by the Lieutenant of the Tower. And to a similar action against the Serjeant at Arms, a similar plea, with variations, however, adapted to his situation, is a legal justification.
The Lord Chancellor considering it as clear in law that the House of Commons have the power of committing for contempt, and that this was a commitment for contempt. Lord Erskine concurring.

Citations:

[1817] EngR 614, (1817) 5 Dow PC 165, (1817) 3 ER 1289

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

At Kings BenchSir Francis Burdett, Bart v The Right Hon Charles Abbot KBD 1811
Speaker’s Powers to Arrest House Members
To an action of trespass against the Speaker of the House of Commons for forcibly, and, with the assistance of armed soldiers, breaking into the messuage of the plaintiff (the outer door being shut and fastened,) and arresting him there, and taking . .
Appeal fromBurdett, Bart v The Right Honourable Charles Abbot CA 22-Apr-1812
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.333464

Dimes v Lord Cottenham: 2 May 1850

The Court will not, on the application of the plaintiff, grant a trial at bar merely because the defendant is Lord Chancellor and the plaintiff an attorney of the Court.

Citations:

[1850] EngR 499 (A), (1850) 5 Exch 311

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

See AlsoDimes v The Company of Proprietors of The Grand Junction Canal CExC 1846
By a local Act of Parliament a company was incorporated and empowered to purchase certain lands ; and all persons seised, possessed of or interested in those lands were empowered to conveyed their right and interest therein to the company, in the . .
See AlsoThe Grand Junction Canal Company v Dimes 1-May-1849
In a suit in which an incorporated company were Plaintiffs, a decree was pronounced by the Vice-Chancellor for England, and was affirmed, on appeal, by the Lord Chancellor. It was afterwards discovered that the Lord Chancellor was a shareholder in . .
See AlsoThe Grand Junction Canal Company v Dimes CA 4-Feb-1850
The defendant had been committed for the breach of an injunction which he believed had been unlawfully granted in that the Lord Chancellor, on appeal, had decided in favour of the plaintiff company in which he held shares. The defendant again . .

Cited by:

See AlsoIn Re Dimes 26-Jul-1850
The claimant challenged his committal to prison saying that the order was invalid in that although made under an order of the Vice-Chancellor, the warrant had been endorsed with the letters CC.
Held: Such an endorsement did not mean that the . .
See AlsoDimes v Proprietors of Grand Junction Canal and others HL 26-Jun-1852
The Lord Chancellor, Lord Cottenham, owned a substantial shareholding in the defendant canal which was an incorporated body. He sat on appeal from the Vice-Chancellor, whose judgment in favour of the company he affirmed. There was an appeal on the . .
See AlsoDimes v The Proprietors Of The Grand Junction Canal and Others 29-Jun-1852
The plaintiff had brought an action to recover land. His appeal failed, but the House later decided that the Lord Chancellor who heard the appeal should have disqualified himself, because he held shareholdings in the defendant company, and his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.297846

The Grand Junction Canal Company v Dimes: CA 4 Feb 1850

The defendant had been committed for the breach of an injunction which he believed had been unlawfully granted in that the Lord Chancellor, on appeal, had decided in favour of the plaintiff company in which he held shares. The defendant again applied for the discharge of the order.
Held: The application was dismissed. The Master of the Rolls sat with the Lord Chancellor to concur in the opinion.

Judges:

Lord Cottenham LC,

Citations:

[1850] EngR 242, (1850) 2 Mac and G 285, (1850) 42 ER 110

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

See AlsoDimes v The Company of Proprietors of The Grand Junction Canal CExC 1846
By a local Act of Parliament a company was incorporated and empowered to purchase certain lands ; and all persons seised, possessed of or interested in those lands were empowered to conveyed their right and interest therein to the company, in the . .
See AlsoThe Grand Junction Canal Company v Dimes 1-May-1849
In a suit in which an incorporated company were Plaintiffs, a decree was pronounced by the Vice-Chancellor for England, and was affirmed, on appeal, by the Lord Chancellor. It was afterwards discovered that the Lord Chancellor was a shareholder in . .

Cited by:

See AlsoDimes v Lord Cottenham 2-May-1850
The Court will not, on the application of the plaintiff, grant a trial at bar merely because the defendant is Lord Chancellor and the plaintiff an attorney of the Court. . .
See AlsoIn Re Dimes 26-Jul-1850
The claimant challenged his committal to prison saying that the order was invalid in that although made under an order of the Vice-Chancellor, the warrant had been endorsed with the letters CC.
Held: Such an endorsement did not mean that the . .
Appeal fromDimes v Proprietors of Grand Junction Canal and others HL 26-Jun-1852
The Lord Chancellor, Lord Cottenham, owned a substantial shareholding in the defendant canal which was an incorporated body. He sat on appeal from the Vice-Chancellor, whose judgment in favour of the company he affirmed. There was an appeal on the . .
See AlsoDimes v The Proprietors Of The Grand Junction Canal and Others 29-Jun-1852
The plaintiff had brought an action to recover land. His appeal failed, but the House later decided that the Lord Chancellor who heard the appeal should have disqualified himself, because he held shareholdings in the defendant company, and his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.297589

The Case of the Royal Fishery of the Banne: 1610

A royal fishery did not pass by a general grant of all fisheries, because general words in a grant did not pass ‘special royalty which belongeth to the Crown by prerogative’.

Citations:

[1610] Dav 149

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

AppliedDuke of Somerset v Fogwell 1826
Where a subject is owner of a several fishery in a navigable river, where the tide flows and reflows, granted to him (as must be presumed) before Magna Charta, by the description of ‘separalem piscariam,’ that is an incorporeal and not a territorial . .
CitedCrown Estate Commissioners v Roberts and Another ChD 13-Jun-2008
The defendant claimed ownership as Lord Marcher of St Davids of historical rights in foreshores in Pembrokeshire. The claimants sought removal of his cautions against first registration.
Held: Lewison J explored the history of manorial . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture, Constitutional

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.269747

Tobin v The Queen: 1864

The Commander of a Queen’s ship, employed in the suppression of the slave trade on the coast of Africa, seized a schooner belonging to the suppliant, which he suspected of being engaged in slave traffic. It being inconvenient to take the ship to port for condemnation in a Vice-Admiralty Court, the Commander caused the ship to be burned. The shipowners proceeded by Petition of Right. The supplicant-petitioners claimed to have sustained damages to the amount of andpound;10,000 and humbly prayed that Her Majesty would be pleased to do what was right and just in the premises and to cause her suppliants to be reimbursed and compensated for the losses, damages and injuries so sustained. The Attorney General, on demurrer, argued that if wrong had been done the remedy was against the Commander as the person who did it and, secondly, that the Crown was not responsible for acts such as those detailed in the petition. In the course of a long argument on behalf of the petitioner Sir Hugh Cairns drew attention to Blackstone’s Commentaries – 3 BL Comm 254: ‘That the King can do no wrong, is a necessary and fundamental principle of the English Constitution: meaning that, in the first place, whatever may be amiss in the conduct of public affairs is not chargeable personally on the King, nor is he, but his ministers, accountable for it to the people; and, second, that the prerogative of the Crown extends not to do any injury; for, being created for the benefit of the people, it cannot be exerted to their prejudice. Whenever, therefore, it happens that that, by misinformation or inadvertence, the Crown hath been induced to invade the private rights of any of its subjects, though no action will lie against the sovereign (for, who shall command the King?), yet the law hath furnished the subject with a decent and respectful mode of removing that invasion, by informing the King of the true state of the matter in dispute: and, as it presumes, that, to know of any injury and to redress it are inseparable in the Royal Breast, it then issues as of course, in the King’s own name, his orders to his judges to do justice to the party aggrieved.’
Held: Erle CJ said: ‘The maxim that the King can do no wrong is true in the sense that he is not liable to be sued civilly or criminally for a supposed wrong. That which the sovereign does personally, the law presumes will not be wrong: that which the sovereign does by command to his servants, cannot be a wrong in the sovereign, because, if the command is unlawful, it is in law no command, and the servant is responsible for the unlawful act, the same as if there had been no command.’ He referred to 3 BL Comm: ‘The King can do no wrong; which antient and fundamental maxim is not to be understood as if everything transacted by the government was of course just and lawful, but means only two things, – first, whatever is exceptionable in the conduct of public affairs is not to be imputed to the King, nor he is answerable for it personally to his people; for, this doctrine would destroy the constitutional independence of the Crown, – and, secondly, that the prerogative of the Crown extends not to do any injury.’
That maxim, said the Chief Justice, had been constantly recognised and he rejected that the King could be responsible in damages for a supposed wrong. He then turned to the use and abuse of petitions of right. The court held that such petitions did not enable an award of damages to be made against the King; if damages were sought, they were to be obtained, if at all, from the officer who did the wrong.

Judges:

Erle CJ

Citations:

(1864) 16 CB (NS) 310

Cited by:

CitedFeather v The Queen 1865
Mr Feather had invented way of protecting ships against shot and obtained an exclusive patent. The Crown then had a ship constructed in a way that infringed the patent. As patentee Mr Feather asked for recompense; by petition of right he asked for . .
CitedRoberts v Swangrove Estates Ltd and Another ChD 14-Mar-2007
The court heard preliminary applications in a case asserting acquisition of land by adverse possession, the land being parts of the foreshore of the Severn Estuary.
Held: A person may acquire title to part of the bed of a tidal river by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.267401

Inland Revenue Commissioners v Dowdall, O’Mahoney and Co Ltd: HL 1952

A court is not prevented from interpreting the common law by an Act of parliament being based upon a different view.

Citations:

[1952] AC 401

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedWest Midland Baptist (Trust) Association (Inc) v Birmingham Corporation HL 1970
The mere fact that an enactment shows that Parliament must have thought that the law was one thing, does not preclude the courts from deciding that the law was in fact something different. The position would be different if the provisions of the . .
CitedJackson and others v Attorney General HL 13-Oct-2005
The applicant sought to challenge the 2004 Hunting Act, saying that it had been passed under the provisions of the 1949 Parliament Act which was itself an unlawful extension of the powers given by the 1911 Parliament Act to allow the House of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.182110

L’Office Cherifien Des Phosphates and Another v Yamashita-Shinnihon Steamship Co Ltd: HL 19 Jan 1994

The subject matter of statutes is so varied that generalised maxims are not a reliable guide. An arbitrator can dismiss a claim for inordinate and inexcusable delay, even where this had arisen before the Act which created the power.
Lord Mustill said: ‘Precisely how the single question of fairness will be answered in respect of a particular statute will depend on the interaction of several factors, each of them capable of varying from case to case. Thus, the degree to which the statute has retrospective effect is not a constant. Nor is the value of the rights which the statute affects, or the extent to which that value is diminished or extinguished by the retrospective effect of the statute. Again, the unfairness of adversely affecting the rights, and hence the degree of unlikelihood that this is what Parliament intended, will vary from case to case. So also will the clarity of the language used by Parliament, and the light shed on it by consideration of the circumstances in which the legislation was enacted. All these factors must be weighed together to provide a direct answer to the question whether the consequences of reading the statute with the suggested degree of retrospectivity are so unfair that the words used by parliament cannot have been intended to mean what they might appear to say.’ and
‘My Lords, it would be impossible now to doubt that the Court is required to approach questions of statutory interpretation with a disposition, and in some cases a very strong disposition, to assume that a statute is not intended to have retrospective effect. Nor indeed would I wish to cast any doubt on the validity of this approach for it ensures that the Courts are constantly on the alert for the kind of unfairness which is found in, for example, the characterisation as criminal of past conduct which was lawful when it took place, or in alterations to the antecedent national, civil or familial status of individuals. Nevertheless, I must own up to reservations about the reliability of generalised presumptions and maxims when engaged in the task of finding out what Parliament intended by a particular form of words, for they too readily confine the Court to a perspective which treats all statutes, and all situations to which they apply, as if they were the same. This is misleading, for the basis of the rule is no more than simple fairness, which ought to be the basis of every legal rule.’

Judges:

Lord Mustill

Citations:

Gazette 26-Jan-1994, Independent 19-Jan-1994, Times 17-Dec-1993, [1994] 1 AC 486, [1994] 1 All ER 20, [1994] 1 Lloyds Rep 251, [1994] 2 WLR 39

Statutes:

Arbitration Act 1950 13A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedWilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) HL 10-Jul-2003
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent lender of its . .
CitedOdelola v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 20-May-2009
The appellant had applied for leave to remain as a postgraduate doctor. Before her application was determined, the rules changed. She said that her application should have been dealt with under the rules applicable at the time of her application. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Constitutional

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.90653

Close v Steel Company of Wales Ltd: 1962

The pursuer sought damages after injury arising from the use of a tool for a purpose other than that for which it was intended to be used. Lord Denning quoted Sir Frederick Pollock to say: ‘Judicial authority belongs not to the exact words used in this or that judgment, nor even to all the reasons given, but only to the principles accepted and applied as necessary grounds of the decision.’ referring to Selborne LC’s judgment in Caledonian Railway, he said: ‘A judgment which is right, and consistent with sound principles, upon the facts and circumstances of the case which the House had to decide, need not be construed as laying down a rule for a substantially different state of facts and circumstances, though some propositions, wider than the case itself required, may appear to have received countenance from those who then advised the House.’

Judges:

Lord Denning

Citations:

[1962] AC 367

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedCaledonian Railway Co v Walker’s Trustees 1882
The court considered the extent of the duty to compensate for disturbance of a business when land was compulsorily purchased. Lord Selborne LC said: ‘The obstruction by the execution of the work, of a man’s direct access to his house or land, . .
CitedQuinn v Leathem HL 5-Aug-1901
Unlawful Means Conspiracy has two forms
Quinn was treasurer of a Belfast butchers’ association. Leathem, who traded as a butcher, employed some non-union men, although when the union made difficulties he asked for them to be admitted to the union, and offered to pay their dues. The union . .

Cited by:

CitedRobb v Salamis (M and I) Ltd HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimant was injured working for the defendants on a semi-submersible platform. He fell from a ladder which was not secured properly. He alleged a breach of the Regulations. The defendant denied any breach and asserted that the claimant had . .
CitedSmith, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence and Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) SC 30-Jun-2010
The deceased soldier died of heat exhaustion whilst on active service in Iraq. It was said that he was owed a duty under human rights laws, and that any coroner’s inquest should be a fuller one to satisfy the state’s duty under Article 2.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Scotland, Constitutional

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.247757

Mootoo v Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago: PC 1979

(Trinidad and Tobago) Proponents of claims that properly passed parliamentary legislation was invalid face a heavy burden.

Citations:

[1979] 1 WLR 1334, [1979] 3 WIR 411

Cited by:

CitedGrant v The Queen PC 16-Jan-2006
(Jamaica) The defendant appealed his conviction for murder saying that the admission of an unsworn statement by one witness and the non-admission of another similar statement who did not either attend court was unconstitutional. He shot the victim . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Constitutional

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.242105

Geok v Minister of the Interior: PC 1964

A provision of the Constitution of Malaysia allowed the Federal Government to deprive a person of his citizenship ‘if satisfied that he has shown himself by act or speech to be disloyal or disaffected towards the Federation’. The allegations against the appellant were based on what he had said and done after August 1957, when he was treated as a citizen by registration under the Constitution. He had become a citizen of the Federation of Malaya in 1951.
Held: The provision applied only to acts done or speeches made after registration. A complaint made was that the particulars provided of the conduct relied on against him were inadequate. The Board found that the notice would be valid even if no particulars were provided, since the ground was that the appellant had shown himself to be disloyal and disaffected towards the Federation of Malaysia.

Citations:

[1964] 1 WLR 554

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Cited by:

CitedHicks, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 13-Dec-2005
The claimant, an Australian, presently held by the US as a suspected terrorist in Guantanamo Bay sought to be registered as a British Citizen, saying he was entitled to registration as of right.
Held: The past behaviour of an applicant was not . .
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v Hicks CA 12-Apr-2006
The claimant was held as a suspected terrorist by the US government in Guantanamo Bay. He had Australian citizenship but qualified also for British citizenship. He had sought that citizenship and protection. The secretary of state appealed an order . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.237552

AC v Manitoba (Director of Child and Family Services): 26 Jun 2009

(Supreme Court of Canada) Constitutional law – Charter of Rights – Liberty and security of person – Fundamental justice – Medical treatment – Child under 16 years of age refusing blood transfusions because her religion requires that she abstain from receiving blood – Transfusion necessary to avoid severe consequences to child’s health – For child under 16, provincial child and family services legislation authorizing court to order treatment that it considers in best interests of child – For child 16 and over, no medical treatment can be ordered by court without child’s consent unless court satisfied that child lacks ability to understand relevant information or consequences of treatment decision – Whether legislation arbitrary because it deprives children under 16 of opportunity to demonstrate capacity – Whether legislation infringes child’s liberty and security interests in manner contrary to principles of fundamental justice – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7 – Child and Family Services Act, C.C.S.M. c. C80, s. 25(8), (9).

Constitutional law – Charter of Rights – Equality rights – Discrimination on basis of age – Child under 16 years of age refusing blood transfusions because her religion requires that she abstain from receiving blood – Transfusion necessary to avoid severe consequences to child’s health – For child under 16, provincial child and family services legislation authorizing court to order treatment that it considers in best interests of child – For child 16 and over, no medical treatment can be ordered by court without child’s consent unless court satisfied that child lacks ability to understand relevant information or consequences of treatment decision – Whether legislation infringes child’s equality rights – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 15 – Child and Family Services Act, C.C.S.M. c. C80, s. 25(8), (9).

Constitutional law – Charter of Rights – Freedom of religion – Child under 16 years of age refusing blood transfusions because her religion requires that she abstain from receiving blood – Transfusion necessary to avoid severe consequences to child’s health – For child under 16, provincial child and family services legislation authorizing court to order treatment that it considers in best interests of child – For child 16 and over, no medical treatment can be ordered by court without child’s consent unless court satisfied that child lacks ability to understand relevant information or consequences of treatment decision – Whether legislation infringes child’s freedom of religion – If so, whether infringement justifiable – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 2(a) – Child and Family Services Act, C.C.S.M. c. C80, s. 25(8), (9).
Status of persons – Child protection – Care while under apprehension – Maturity – Court order authorizing treatment – For child under 16, provincial child and family services legislation authorizing court to order treatment that it considers in ‘best interests’ of child – For child 16 and over, no medical treatment can be ordered by court without child’s consent unless court satisfied that child lacks ability to understand relevant information or consequences of treatment decision – Whether young person under 16 entitled to demonstrate sufficiency of maturity in medical treatment decisions – Interpretation of ‘best interests’ standard – Child and Family Services Act, C.C.S.M. c. C80, s. 25(8), (9).

Judges:

McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ

Citations:

[2009] SCC 30, [2009] 2 SCR 181

Links:

Canlii

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Cited by:

CitedRe X (A Child) FD 29-Oct-2020
Limited transfusion against young adults wishes
The Court was asked whether a blood transfusion should be administered to a young woman who was almost, not quite, 16, against her profound religious beliefs. X is a Jehovah’s Witness. She has explained to me, in very powerful and moving words, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Human Rights, Children, Health

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.656348

Resolution to amend the Constitution: 28 Sep 1981

Supreme Court of Canada
The References in question were prompted by the opposition of eight provinces to a proposed Resolution, published on October 2, 1980. The proposed Resolution contained an address to be presented to Her Majesty The Queen in right of the United Kingdom and a statute, to which was appended another statute providing for the patriation of the B.N.A. Act, with an amending procedure, and a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The proposed Resolution carried the approval of only two provinces, Ontario and New Brunswick. The opposition of the others, save Saskatchewan, was based on their assertion that both conventionally and legally the consent of all the provinces was required for the address to be forwarded to Her Majesty with the appended statutes. The proposed Resolution was adopted by the House of Commons and by the Senate on April 23 and 24, 1981.
Questions 1, 2 and 3 of the Manitoba and Newfoundland References submitted for answer and this Court’s answers were as follows:
Question 1 – If the amendments to the Constitution of Canada sought in the ‘Proposed Resolution for a Joint Address to Her Majesty the Queen respecting the Constitution of Canada’, or any of them, were enacted, would federal-provincial relationships or the powers, rights or privileges granted or secured by the Constitution of Canada to the provinces, their legislatures or governments be affected and if so, in what respect or respects?
Answer – Yes.
Question 2 – Is it a constitutional convention that the House of Commons and Senate of Canada will not request Her Majesty the Queen to lay before the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland a measure to amend the Constitution of Canada affecting federal-provincial relationships or the powers, rights or privileges granted or secured by the Constitution of Canada to the provinces, their legislatures or governments without first obtaining the agreement of the provinces?
Answer – Yes.
The Chief Justice and Estey and McIntyre JJ. dissenting would answer ‘no’.
Question 3 – Is the agreement of the provinces of Canada constitutionally required for amendment to the Constitution of Canada where such amendment affects federal-provincial relationships or alters the powers, rights or privileges granted or secured by the Constitution of Canada to the provinces, their legislatures or governments?
Answer -For the reasons stated in answer to Question 2, as a matter of constitutional convention, ‘yes’. The Chief Justice and Estey and McIntyre JJ. dissenting would answer ‘no’.
-As a matter of law, ‘no’. Martland and Ritchie JJ. dissenting would answer ‘yes’.
The Question 4 of the Newfoundland Reference submitted for answer and this Court’s answer was as follows:
Question 4 – If Part V of the proposed resolution referred to in question 1 is enacted and proclaimed into force could
(a) the Terms of Union, including terms 2 and 17 thereof contained in the Schedule to the British North America Act, 1949 (12-13 George VI, c. 22 (UK)), or
(b) section 3 of the British North America Act, 1871 (34-35 Victoria, c. 28 (UK))
be amended directly or indirectly pursuant to Part V without the consent of the Government, Legislature or a majority of the people of the Province of Newfoundland voting in a referendum held pursuant to Part V?
Answer – As expressed in the reasons of the Newfoundland Court of Appeal, subject to the correction made in the reasons of this Court.
Questions A and B of the Quebec Reference submitted for answer and this Court’s answers were as follows:
Question A – If the Canada Act and the Constitution Act, 1981 should come into force and if they should be valid in all respects in Canada would they affect:
(i) the legislative competence of the provincial legislatures in virtue of the Canadian Constitution?
(ii) the status or role of the provincial legislatures or governments within the Canadian Federation?
Answers -(i) Yes.
(ii) Yes.
Question B-Does the Canadian Constitution empower, whether by statute, convention or otherwise, the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada to cause the Canadian Constitution to be amended without the consent of the provinces and in spite of the objection of several of them, in such a manner as to affect:
(i) the legislative competence of the provincial legislatures in virtue of the Canadian Constitution?
(ii) the status or role of the provincial legislatures or governments within the Canadian Federation?
Answers -(i)
(a) by statute, no;
(b) by convention, no.
The Chief Justice and Estey and McIntyre JJ. would answer that there is no precluding convention.
(c) as a matter of law, yes.
Martland and Ritchie JJ. dissenting would answer ‘no’.
(ii)
(a) by statute, no;
(b) by convention, no.
The Chief Justice and Estey and McIntyre JJ. would answer that there is no precluding convention.
(c) as a matter of law, yes.
Martland and Ritchie JJ. dissenting would answer ‘no’.
Chief Justice (Laskin) and Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Lamer JJ stated: ‘The very nature of a convention, as political in inception and as depending on a consistent course of political recognition by those for whose benefit and to whose detriment (if any) the convention developed over a considerable period of time is inconsistent with its legal enforcement.’
Chief Justice and Estey and MacIntyre JJ (dissenting) considered the status of conventions: ‘[A] fundamental difference between the legal, that is the statutory and common law rules of the constitution, and the conventional rules is that, while a breach of the legal rules, whether of statutory or common law nature, has a legal consequence in that it will be restrained by the courts, no such sanction exists for breach or non-observance of the conventional rules. The observance of constitutional conventions depends upon the acceptance of the obligation of conformance by the actors deemed to be bound thereby. When this consideration is insufficient to compel observance no court may enforce the convention by legal action. The sanction for non-observance of a convention is political in that disregard of a convention may lead to political defeat, to loss of office, or to other political consequences, but will not engage the attention of the courts which are limited to matters of law alone. Courts, however, may recognise the existence of conventions . . ‘
Martland, Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Chouinard and Lamer JJ agreed: ‘It is because the sanctions of convention rest with institutions of government other than courts . . or with public opinion and ultimately, with the electorate, that it is generally said that they are political.’

Judges:

Laskin C. and Martland, Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Lamer JJ

Citations:

[1981] 1 SCR 753, 34 Nfld and PEIR 1, 125 DLR (3d) 1, 1981 CanLII 25 (SCC), [1981] 6 WWR 1, 39 NR 1, [1981] SCJ No 58 (QL), 11 Man R (2d) 1, 1 CRR 59, 95 APR 1

Links:

Canlii

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Cited by:

CitedMiller and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Exiting The European Union SC 24-Jan-2017
Parliament’s Approval if statute rights affected
In a referendum, the people had voted to leave the European Union. That would require a notice to the Union under Article 50 TEU. The Secretary of State appealed against an order requiring Parliamentary approval before issuing the notice, he saying . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.575307

Dodd v Dodd: 1906

Sir Gorell Barnes P set out the task of a judge saying that it is our task is jus dicere non jus dare – to state the law, not to make the law, but decried the state of family law: ‘That the present state of the English law of divorce and separation is not satisfactory can hardly be doubted. The law is full of inconsistencies, anomalies, and inequalities amounting almost to absurdities; and it does not produce desirable results in certain important respects.’
‘The order does not state upon its face the finding of fact upon which the order was made – in other words, it does not state on the face of it that the respondent had been guilty of wilful neglect to provide reasonable maintenance for the petitioner and her child, and that by such neglect he had caused her to leave and live separately and apart from him. It might be said that I could therefore ignore the order and treat it as if it had never been applied for and made, on the general principle that a Magistrate’s order ought to state the finding of fact essential to the exercise of the jurisdiction: see the observations in the case of Brown v. Brown (1898, 62 JP 711); but it is necessary to observe, first, that this point is highly technical, and, on an appeal to this Division, the defect could have been corrected, that the petitioner acted upon the order and endeavoured to enforce it, and that it was undoubtedly treated by both parties as being an effective order, and further, that in the case of Brown v. Brown the effect of the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Acts and of the forms which are provided for use under those Acts was not fully considered. According to s. 8 of the Act of 1895 all applications under it are to be made in accordance with the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, and, without going through the details of those Acts as they at present stand, it is sufficient to observe that the Summary Jurisdiction Rules J 886, r. 31, provided that the forms in the schedule thereto, or forms to the like effect, might be used with such variations as circumstances might require; and the forms of orders in that schedule omit to state whether the complaint is found and adjudged to be true: so that although in strictness the order ought to state the findings of fact essential to jurisdiction, having regard to the provisions of the Act and Rules to which I have just referred, I am not prepared to hold, without further argument, that this order ought to be treated as bad on the face of it. I might point out, however, that it is desirable that the practice adopted, I believe, by the Magistrates in London of stating that the cause of complaint is found to be true is desirable in order to avoid any such difficulty as arises in the present case upon this point . . ‘

Judges:

Sir Gorell Barnes P

Citations:

[1906] P 189

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedOwens v Owens CA 24-Mar-2017
Unreasonable Behaviour must reach criteria
W appealed against the judge’s refusal to grant a decree of divorce. He found that the marriage had broken down irretrievably, but did not find that H had behaved iin such a way that she could not reasonably be expected to live with H.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Family

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.581124

Lee v Bude and Torrington Junction Railway Co: 1871

It was alleged that Parliament had been induced to pass an Act by fraudulent recitals.
Held: Willes J said: ‘Are we to act as regents over what is done by parliament with the consent of the Queen, lords and commons? I deny that any such authority exists. If an Act of Parliament has been obtained improperly, it is for the legislature to correct it by repealing it: but, so long as it exists as law. the Courts are bound to obey it. The proceedings here are judicial, not autocratic, which they would be if we could make laws instead of administering them.’
When a statute gives a judge a discretion, what is meant is a judicial discretion, regulated according to the known rules of law, and not the mere whim or caprice of the person to whom it is given on the assumption that he is discreet

Judges:

Willes J

Citations:

(1871) LR 6 CP 576

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedPickin v British Railways Board HL 30-Jan-1974
Courts Not to Investigate Parliament’s Actions
It was alleged that the respondent had misled Parliament to secure the passing of a private Act. The claimant said that the land taken from him under the Act was no longer required, and that he should be entitled to have it returned.
Held: . .
CitedHS2 Action Alliance Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Transport and Another SC 22-Jan-2014
The government planned to promote a large scale rail development (HS2), announcing this in a command paper. The main issues, in summary, were, first, whether it should have been preceded by strategic environmental assessment, under the relevant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.575314

Fitzgerald v Muldoon: 1976

A Labour government introduced a contributory superannuation scheme. Statute made contribution by employer and employee compulsory. The leader of the National opposition, Muldoon, promised to abolish the scheme immediately on becoming government. National won a landslide victory in November 1975. But the Prime Minister, Muldoon, had no desire to reconvene Parliament until June. Two weeks later he issued a press statement. It said that the compulsory requirement to contribute ‘will cease as from today’.2 The junior public servant, Fitzgerald, issued proceedings challenging the Prime Ministerial statement.

Citations:

[1976] 2 NZLR 5615

Jurisdiction:

New Zealand

Cited by:

CitedMiller and Dos Santos v The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and Others QBD 13-Nov-2016
Article 50 Notice Requires Parliament’s Authority
The applicant challenged a decision by the respondent that he could use Crown prerogative powers to issue a notice under section 50 TUE to initiate the United Kingdom leaving the EU following the referendum under the 2015 Act.
Held: Once the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.570777

Point of Ayr Collieries Ltd v Lloyd George: CA 1943

The court considered a challenge to the appropriation of a colliery. The minister was given power under the 1939 Regulations: ‘if it appeared to him that in the interests of the public safety, the defence of the Realm, or the efficient prosecution of the war it was necessary to take control ‘ of property.
Held: The argument was rejected. There was no jurisdiction to interfere with the exercise of an executive power within his delegated authority.
Lord Greene MR said: ‘It is a settled principle, in dealing with documents of this kind, that the rule of omnia rite esse acta is to be applied, and, therefore, when it is stated by the Ministry in the proper way that it appears to the Minister of Fuel and Power that certain things are so, it is to be taken that that is an accurate statement unless and until the contrary is proved.’ and ‘If one thing is settled beyond the possibility of dispute, it is that, in construing regulations of this character expressed in this particular form of language, it is for the competent authority . . to decide as to whether or not a case for the exercise authority to judge of the adequacy of the evidence before it. It is for the competent authority to judge whether or not it is desirable or necessary to make further investigations before taking action. It is for the competent authority to decide whether the situation requires an immediate step, or whether some delay may be allowed for further investigation and perhaps negotiation . . One thing is certain and that is that those matters are not within the competence of this Court. It is the competent authority that is selected to come to the decision. and, if that decision is come to in good faith, this Court has no power to interfere provided, of course, that the action is one within the four corners of the authority . .’

Judges:

Lord Greene MR

Citations:

[1943] 2 All ER 546

Statutes:

Defence (General) Regulations 1939

Constitutional

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.546906