Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Constitutional - From: 1990 To: 1990

This page lists 10 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.

 
Wright and Advertiser Newspapers Limited v Lewis (1990) 53 SASR 416; [1990] Aust Torts Reports 81-026
1990

King CJ
Commonwealth, Constitutional, Defamation
(Supreme Court of South Australia) L, a member of the South Australia House of Assembly, alleged in the House that W had obtained an advantage from his close association with a former Government. W wrote to the newspaper, which published it, accusing L of abusing parliamentary privilege and of cheap political opportunism. L said the letter was libelous. W pleaded justification, qualified privilege and fair comment. L's integrity in making statements in the House was determinative of the action: the letter was plainly defamatory and unless the defendants could challenge the truthfulness of what the plaintiff had said in Parliament, they had no defence. Held. King CJ set out the result of allowing the action without such evidence: "It must be observed at the outset that if the view argued for by counsel for the Attorney-General and the plaintiff is correct, the result is remarkable. A Member of Parliament could sue for defamation in respect of criticism of his statements or conduct in the Parliament. The defendant would be precluded, however, from alleging and proving that what was said by way of criticism was true. This would amount to a gross distortion of the law of defamation in its application to such a situation. Defamation in law is by definition an untrue imputation against the reputation of another. . . If the defendant were precluded from proving the truth of what is alleged, the Member of Parliament would be enabled to recover damages, if no other defence applied, for an imputation which was perfectly true. Moreover the defence of fair comment would often be unavailable, as in the present case, because it would not be permissible to prove the factual foundation for the expression of opinion. The defence of qualified privilege might be seriously inhibited because the defendant would be prevented from answering an allegation of express malice by proving the facts as known to him. If this is the true legal position, it is difficult to envisage how a court could apply the law of defamation in a rational way to an action by a Member of Parliament in respect of an imputation relating to his statements or conduct in the House, or could try such an action fairly or adjudicate upon it justly.
If on the other hand such an action is not justiciable, other difficulties and injustices arise.
. . A Member of Parliament would be deprived of the ordinary right of a citizen to obtain damages for defamation in such circumstances notwithstanding , the privilege being that of the Parliament not of the member, that he might be quite willing to have all the ordinary defences put forward and adjudicated upon by the court."
The Court held limited parliamentary privilege does to exclude challenges to the truth or bona fides of statements made in Parliament where the maker of the statements himself initiates the proceedings. Such a limitation on normal parliamentary privilege would not inhibit the member from exercising his freedom of speech "because he would be aware that his actions and motives could not be examined in court unless he instituted the proceedings which rendered such examination necessary".
1 Citers


 
Rost v Edwards [1990] 2 QB 460; [1990] 2 All ER 641
1990


Administrative, Constitutional
The plaintiff a Member of Parliament wished to lead evidence about the circumstances in which, having been nominated to serve on a Standing Committee, he was de-selected from the Committee, and in which he failed to secure appointment as the chairman of a Select Committee. He also wished to lead evidence as to questions which were asked in the House by Opposition Members about his conduct, and as to a letter which one of the Opposition Members sent to him and also to the Speaker, complaining about the plaintiff's conduct. The letter concerned the questions which the Member subsequently raised in the House. Held: All these matters were fell within the scope of "proceedings in Parliament". Where the exclusion of material on the grounds of Parliamentary privilege made it impossible fairly to determine the issue between the parties, the proceedings should be stopped.

 
Rangarajan v Jagjivan Ram [1990] LRC (Const) 412
1990

J Shetty
Constitutional, Commonwealth
Democracy is a government by the people via open discussion. The democratic form of government itself demands of its citizens an active and intelligent participation in the affairs of the community. The public discussion with people’s participation is a basic feature and a rational price of democracy which distinguishes it from all other forms of government.
1 Citers


 
Falciola Angelo Spa v Comune Di Pavia R-286/88; [1990] EUECJ R-286/88
26 Jan 1990
ECJ

Constitutional
ECJ The procedure provided for in Article 177 of the Treaty is an instrument of cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts, whereby the former supplies the latter with the information on the interpretation of Community law which is necessary in order to enable them to settle disputes which are brought before them. A request from a national court may be rejected only if it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Community law or the examination of the validity of a rule of Community law sought by that court bears no relation to the actual nature of the case or to the subject-matter of the main action
[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame; ECJ 19-Jun-1990 - [1990] 2 Lloyds Rep 351; [1990] 3 CMLR 1; C-213/89; [1990] EUECJ C-213/89

 
 Director of Public Prosecutions v Hutchinson; Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith; HL 12-Jul-1990 - [1990] 2 AC 783; Times, 13 July 1990; [1988] UKHL 11
 
Regina v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame Ltd [1990] UKHL 7; [1990] 2 LLR 365; [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep 365
26 Jul 1990
HL

European, Constitutional
(Interim Relief Order)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame (No 2); HL 11-Oct-1990 - [1991] 1 AC 603; [1990] UKHL 13; [1990] 3 CMLR 375; [1991] 1 All ER 70; (1991) 3 Admin LR 333; [1990] 3 WLR 818; [1991] 1 Lloyd's Rep 10

 
 Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA; ECJ 13-Nov-1990 - (1992) 1 CMLR 305; C-106/89; [1990] ECR I-4135; [1990] EUECJ C-106/89; [1990] 1 ECR 3313
 
Secretary of State v Tunnicliffe [1990] UKSSCSC CG - 53 - 1988
13 Dec 1990
SSCS

Benefits, Constitutional
Recovery of overpayment - payment made before repeal of section 119 of the Social Security Act 1975 - whether claimant had an "acquired" or "accrued" right that survived the repeal
Social Security Act 1975 119
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.