Kimathi and Others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office: QBD 20 Dec 2017

Parliamentary privilege The claimants sought to have admitted as evidence extracts from Hansard in support of their claim for damages arising from historic claims.
Held: The court set out the authorities and made orders as to each element.
References: [2017] EWHC 3379 (QB), [2018] 4 WLR 48
Links: Bailii
Judges: Stewart J
Statutes: Bill of Rights 1689 9, Parliamentary Privilege Act 1987 16(3)(b)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Cited – Chaytor and Others, Regina v CACD 30-Jul-2010 (, [2010] EWCA Crim 1910, [2010] WLR (D) 214, [2010] 2 Cr App Rep 34)
    The defendants had been members of the Houses of Commons and of Lords. They faced charges of dishonesty in respect of their expenses claims. They now appealed a finding that they were not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament under . .
  • Cited – Regina v Morley; Regina v Chaytor; Regina v Devine; Regina v Lord Hanningfield CC 11-Jun-2010 ([2010] EW Misc 9 (EWCC), , )
    (Southwark Crown Court) The defendants faced charges of false accounting in connection with expense claims as members of parliament, three of the House of Commons and one of the Lords. Each claimed that the matter was covered by Parliamentary . .
  • Cited – Rex v Eliot, Hollis and Valentine 1629 ((1629) 3 St Tr 294)
    Proceedings were taken in the King’s Bench against three members of the House of Commons, who were charged with seditious speeches, contempt of the King (Charles I) in resisting the adjournment of the House and with conspiracy to keep the Speaker in . .
  • Cited – Rex v Eliot, Hollis and Valentine 1629 ((1629) 3 St Tr 294)
    Proceedings were taken in the King’s Bench against three members of the House of Commons, who were charged with seditious speeches, contempt of the King (Charles I) in resisting the adjournment of the House and with conspiracy to keep the Speaker in . .
  • Cited – Church of Scientology of California v Johnson-Smith QBD 1971 ([1972] 1 All ER 378, [1971] 3 WLR 434, [1972] 1 QB 522)
    The plaintiff church sued the defendant, a Member of Parliament, for remarks made by the defendant in a television programme. He pleaded fair comment and the plaintiff replied with a plea of malice, relying on statements made in Parliament. The . .
  • Cited – Bradley and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 21-Feb-2007 (, [2007] EWHC 242 (Admin), Times 27-Feb-07, [2007] ACD 85, [2007] Pens LR 87)
    The claimant had lost his company pension and complained that the respondent had refused to follow the recommendation of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration that compensation should be paid.
    Held: The court should not rely on . .
  • Cited – Federation of Tour Operators and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs and others Admn 4-Sep-2007 (, [2007] EWHC 2062 (Admin), Times 09-Oct-07)
    The claimants complained that the sudden doubling of Airport Passenger Duty was unlawful since it had not been possible to recover this from customers, and was in breach of the Convention.
    Held: The claim failed. The cost to the applicants as . .
  • Cited – Office of Government Commerce v Information Commissioner and Another Admn 11-Apr-2008 (, [2008] EWHC 737 (Admin), [2009] 3 WLR 627, [2008] ACD 54, [2010] QB 98)
    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 . .
  • Cited – Age UK, Regina (On the Application of) v Attorney General Admn 25-Sep-2009 (Times 08-Oct-09, , [2009] EWHC 2336 (Admin), [2009] IRLR 1017, [2009] Pens LR 333, [2010] 1 CMLR 21, [2010] ICR 260)
    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 . .
  • Cited – Chaytor and Others, Regina v SC 1-Dec-2010 (, [2010] UKSC 52, , [2010] WLR (D) 311, , UKSC 2010/0195, , , [2011] 1 Cr App R 22, [2010] 3 WLR 1707, [2011] 1 All ER 805, [2011] 1 AC 684)
    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 . .
  • Cited – HM Advocate v Coulson HCJ 3-Jun-2015 (, [2015] ScotHC HCJAC – 49, 2015 GWD 20-336, 2015 SLT 438, 2015 SCCR 219, 2015 SCL 588)
    As part of the proof of the alleged falsity of Mr Coulson’s evidence, the prosecution wanted to refer to evidence given by him to a Select Committee of the House of Commons.
    Held: ‘Article 9 of the Bill of Rights provides that proceedings in . .
  • Cited – Butt v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 26-Jul-2017 (, [2017] EWHC 1930 (Admin), [2017] ACD 109, [2017] ELR 537, [2017] HRLR 12, [2017] 4 WLR 154, [2017] WLR(D) 543, )
    Challenge to proposed scheme for management of extremism in Universities.
    Ouseley J said: ‘I have referred to some only to explore, without questioning, whether they contained ‘evidence’ on a particular topic. I have read the contributions of . .
  • Cited – Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart HL 26-Nov-1992 (, [1992] 3 WLR 1032, [1993] AC 593, [1993] 1 All ER 42, , [1992] UKHL 3, [1993] IRLR 33, [1993] RVR 127, [1992] STC 898, [1993] ICR 291)
    The inspector sought to tax the benefits in kind received by teachers at a private school in having their children educated at the school for free. Having agreed this was a taxable emolument, it was argued as to whether the taxable benefit was the . .
  • See Also – Kimathi and Others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office QBD 26-Nov-2015 (, [2015] EWHC 3432 (QB))
    Reasns on decisions on applications for exclusion of certain witness statements . .
  • See Also – Kimathi and Others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office QBD 16-Dec-2015 (, [2015] EWHC 3684 (QB))
    . .
  • See Also – Kimathi and Others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office QBD 18-Mar-2016 (, [2016] EWHC 600 (QB))
    Ruling in relation to Defendant’s application for an order ‘directing that the issues of double actionability and limitation be heard and determined as preliminary issues’ . .
  • See Also – Kimathi and Others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office QBD 31-Oct-2017 (, [2017] EWHC 2703 (QB))
    Third judgment in respect of amendments to the individual Particulars of Claim . .
  • See Also – Kimathi and Others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office QBD 31-Oct-2017 (, [2017] EWHC 2703 (QB))
    Third judgment in respect of amendments to the individual Particulars of Claim . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 15 November 2020; Ref: scu.602140