The applicants sought to amend earlier pleadings to add a claim that their human rights had been infringed by the 1982 Act, which gave the respondents certain immunities.
Held: The Human Rights Act 1998 was not retrospective. At the time when it should have been made, the amendment would have been doomed to failure by virtue of the 1982 Act. Lloyd’s had an accrued right under section 14(3) of the 1982 Act, namely that they had no liability in damages except where bad faith could be established. S3(1) of the HRA could not be used to construe section 14(3) of the Lloyd’s Act in such a way as to alter that accrued right, which depended upon the way in which section 14(3) would be construed but for section 3 of the HRA.
Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Waller Lord Justice Chadwick
 EWCA Civ 1887, Times 23-Jan-2004
European Convention on Human Rights 6, Lloyd’s Act 1982 14(3), Human Rights Act 1998 3
England and Wales
See Also – Society of Lloyd’s v Laws and others ComC 28-Jan-2004
Cited – A 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 . .
Cited – Green v Eadie and Others ChD 18-Nov-2011
The claimant as PR of her husband’s estate sought damages for misrepresentation and, against his former solicitiors for negligence in regards to the boundaries of a property he had bought from the first defendants using the second defendants as his . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 January 2021; Ref: scu.191988