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: 2000 To: 2000
This page lists 28 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.
HM Advocate v Scottish Media Newspapers Ltd 2000 SLT 331
2000
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Scotland, Constitutional, Human Rights
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.
Scotland Act 1998 57(2) - European Convention on Human Rights
1 Citers
Mohammadally v The State (2000 SCJ No 289)
2000
Commonwealth, Criminal Practice, Constitutional
(Supreme Court of Mauritius) The appellant had dispensed with the services of her counsel four days before the date of trial and had not taken steps to engage another. The trial judge refused to grant her a postponement, on the ground that she could readily have made efforts to obtain another counsel in the time. She was convicted of a drugs charge and her appeal against conviction was dismissed. Held: Since she could easily have engaged another counsel in the time and had made no attempt to do so, she had not been denied access to legal advice and there was no breach of section 10 of the Constitution.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Barrett and others v Morgan; HL 27-Jan-2000 - Times, 28 January 2000; Gazette, 10 February 2000; [2000] 2 WLR 285; [2000] UKHL 1; [2000] 2 AC 264; [2000] 1 All ER 481
McGonnell v The United Kingdom; ECHR 8-Feb-2000 - Times, 22 February 2000; 28488/95; (2000) 30 EHRR 289; [2000] ECHR 62
Attorney-General v Barker Times, 07 March 2000; Gazette, 09 March 2000; [2001] 1 FLR 759
16 Feb 2000
CA
Lord Bingham CJ
Constitutional, Litigation Practice
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."
Supreme Court Act 1981 42(1)
1 Citers
Whaley v Lord Watson; SCS 16-Feb-2000 - Times, 21 March 2000; [2000] ScotCS 41; 2000 SCLR 279; 2000 SC 340
Her Majesty's Attorney General v Foley and Foley; CA 1-Mar-2000 - Gazette, 30 March 2000; Times, 07 March 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 62
Inco Europe Ltd and Others v First Choice Distributors (A Firm) and Others; HL 10-Mar-2000 - Times, 10 March 2000; Gazette, 23 March 2000; [2000] UKHL 15; [2000] 1 WLR 586; [2000] CLC 1015; (2000) 2 TCLR 487; [2000] 1 All ER (Comm) 674; [2000] 2 All ER 109; [2000] 1 Lloyd's Rep 467; 74 Con LR 55; [2000] BLR 259
Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Secretary of State for et Environment Transport and the Regions and Another Times, 14 March 2000
14 Mar 2000
CA
Constitutional, Planning, Landlord and Tenant
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.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 172 - Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973 25
Hamilton v Al Fayed; HL 23-Mar-2000 - Times, 28 March 2000; Gazette, 06 April 2000; [2000] 2 All ER 224; [2000] UKHL 18; [2001] 1 AC 395
Heil v Rankin, Rees v Mabco (102) Ltd, Schofield v Saunders and Taylor Ltd and Other cases Times, 24 March 2000; Gazette, 06 April 2000; [2000] 2 WLR 1173; [2000] EWCA Civ 84; [2000] 3 All ER 138; [2000] Lloyd's Rep Med 203; [2000] IRLR 334; [2000] PIQR Q187; [2001] QB 272
23 Mar 2000
CA
Lord Woolf MR, Beldam, Otton, May LJJ, Nelson J
Constitutional, Personal Injury, Damages
The Law Commission had recommended that the general level of damages awarded for pain suffering and loss of amenity in personal injury cases should be raised. The Court now considered several cases on the issue. Held: The court would do so. Awards above pounds 10,000 should be raised on a sliding scale to a one third proportion in the most severe cases. No change in principle was involved. It was proper for the Court of Appeal to respond to such a report provided it confined its answer to provision of tariffs. The old awards had become out of line with what society as a whole would consider reasonable.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina v The Director of Public Prosecutions, Ex Parte Manning, Ex Parte Melbourne; QBD 17-May-2000 - [2000] EWHC Admin 342; [2001] 1 QB 330; [2000] Inquest LR 133; [2000] Po LR 172; [2001] HRLR 3; [2000] 3 WLR 463; [2000] EWHC 562 (QB); [2001] QB 330
Henry Boot Construction (UK) Limited v Malmaison Hotel (Manchester) Limited; CA 25-May-2000 - Times, 31 August 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 175; [2001] QB 388
Darmalingum v The State; PC 10-Jul-2000 - Times, 18 July 2000; [2000] UKPC 30; Appeal No 42 of 1999; [2000] 1 WLR 2303
Nwogbe v Nwogbe; CA 11-Jul-2000 - Times, 11 July 2000; Gazette, 07 September 2000; [2000] 2 FLR 744
The Bahamas District of the Methodist Church in the Caribbean and the Americas and Others v The Hon Vernon J Symonette M P Speaker of the House of Assembly and 7 Others (No 70 of 1998) and Ormond Hilton Poitier and 14 Others v The Methodist Church [2000] UKPC 31; No 70 of 1998
26 Jul 2000
PC
Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Clyde Lord Hutton
Commonwealth, Constitutional, Ecclesiastical, Charity
PC (The Bahamas) The Methodist community had split, eventually leading to a new Act. Others now challenged the constitionality of the Act, and that lands had been transferred in breach of the constitution. Held: The court had jurisdiction to entertain the constitutional issues raised in the main action. But no case was made for treating these proceedings as exceptional. Had the main action come to trial before the enactment of the Act, the court would have been bound to decline to intervene in the legislative process, but it did not. The main action remained an adequate and suitable proceeding in which to consider, post-enactment, the constitutional issues of substance raised in the action. The court was not being asked to rule on an academic matter. Though a parliament might have the power to deprive people of their properties in the public interest, the constitution of the Bahamas contained no such epress power. However, th econstitution could be construed purposively to produce such a power.
1 Cites
[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]
Christian Education South Africa v Minister of Education (2000) 9 BHRC 53
18 Aug 2000
Sachs J
Commonwealth, Constitutional, Human Rights
(Constitutional Court of South Africa) The court considered a ban on corporal punishment in schools in a religious context: "Though there might be special problems attendant on undertaking the limitations analysis in respect of religious practices, the standard to be applied is the nuanced and contextual one required by s36 and not the rigid one of strict scrutiny." and "The underlying problem in any open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom in which conscientious and religious freedom has to be regarded with appropriate seriousness, is how far such democracy can and must go in allowing members of religious communities to define for themselves which laws they will obey and which not. Such a society can cohere only if all its participants accept that certain basic norms and standards are binding. Accordingly, believers cannot claim an automatic right to be exempted by their beliefs from the laws of the land. At the same time, the state should, wherever reasonably possible, seek to avoid putting believers to extremely painful and intensely burdensome choices of either being true to their faith or else respectful of the law."
1 Citers
[ Worldlii ]
Regina v Secretary of State for Health, Ex Parte Wagstaff etc; QBD 31-Aug-2000 - Times, 31 August 2000; Gazette, 28 September 2000; [2001] 1 WLR 292
Lewis, Taylor and Mcleod, Brown, Taylor and Shaw v the Attorney General of Jamaica and Another Times, 11 October 2000; [2000] UKPC 35; [2001] 2 AC 50; [2000] 3 WLR 1785
12 Sep 2000
PC
Criminal Sentencing, Natural Justice, Commonwealth, Constitutional
(Jamaica) When the Privy Council considered a petition for mercy by a person sentenced to death, it could not revisit the decision, but could look only at the procedural fairness of the system. The system should allow properly for representations, and the necessary disclosures to be made. Such a petition should be the last step in the process, and should not be complete until other international bodies had considered applications to them. In this case also the extent of delay was sufficient to constitute unusual and inhuman treatment. The constitutional guarantee of "due process of law" and the right to "the protection of the law" are equivalent.
Dissenting, Lord Hoffmann drew attention to the evils which would follow if the power to overrule previous decisions of the Privy Council were exercised too readily.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ PC ]
Sankoh, Re; CA 27-Sep-2000 - [2000] EWCA Civ 386
Regina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ex parte Orange Personal Communications Ltd and Another Times, 15 November 2000; Gazette, 23 November 2000
25 Oct 2000
Admn
Administrative, Media, Licensing, Constitutional
Once rights by way of licences had been granted to a party by virtue of a statute, an amendment to those licences required the Secretary to be explicit with Parliament when altering the licences. The Act provided clear rules for making amendments to licences. The Secretary purported to amend the licences to comply with a European Directive, but the new regulations did not specifically disapply the regime for amending the licences. He should have made it clear in the statutory instrument that the protections were being removed. The regulations made under section 2(2) of the 1972 Act which, if valid, took away valuable rights of Orange which they had enjoyed under the Telecommunications Act 1984, were ultra vires, on the ground that the regulations had failed explicitly to state that rights enjoyed under primary legislation were being taken away.
Telecommunications Act 1984 12 13 14 15 - Telecommunications (Licence Modification) (Standard Schedules) Regulations 1999 (1999 no 2540) - European Communities Act 1972 2(2)
1 Cites
1 Citers
Hoekstra and Others v Her Majesty's Advocate High Court of Justiciary Times, 31 October 2000; [2000] UKHL D2; 2000 GWD 40-148; [2001] AC 216; (2000) 144 SJLB 272; 2000 SCCR 1121; [2000] 3 WLR 1817; 2001 SLT 28
26 Oct 2000
PC
Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Clyde
Scotland, Constitutional
The Privy Council has no standing to act as a general court of appeal on Scottish law. The jurisdiction given to it by the Act, was limited as prescribed by the Act to what are called devolution issues, issues related to the acts of devolution. Not all constitutional issues were indeed devolution issues.
Save for devolution issues as defined by paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 to the Scotland Act 1998, every interlocutor of the High Court of Justiciary such as that pronounced by the judges at the second sift is final and conclusive and not subject to review by any court whatsoever:
Scotland Act 1998 - Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 124(2)
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ PC ] - [ Bailii ]
Regina v Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Another, ex parte Bancoult; Admn 3-Nov-2000 - Times, 10 November 2000; Gazette, 07 December 2000; [2000] EWHC Admin 413; [2001] QB 1067
Tse Wai Chun Paul v Albert Cheng; 13-Nov-2000 - [2001] EMLR 777; [2000] 3 HKLRD 418; [2000] HKCFA 35
Regina v Secretary of State for Health and Others, ex parte Imperial Tobacco Limited and others; HL 7-Dec-2000 - Times, 20 December 2000; [2000] UKHL 60; [2001] 1 All ER 850; [2001] 1 WLR 127
Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and another, ex parte Spath Holme Limited; HL 7-Dec-2000 - Times, 13 December 2000; [2000] UKHL 61; [2001] 2 AC 349; [2001] 1 All ER 195; [2001] 2 WLR 15; (2001) 33 HLR 31; [2000] NPC 139; [2000] EGCS 152; [2000] EG 152; [2001] 1 EGLR 129
Safeway Stores Plc v Albert Tate Times, 26 January 2001; Gazette, 22 February 2001; [2000] EWCA Civ 335
18 Dec 2000
CA
Lord Justice Otton, Lord Justice Mantell And Sir Ronald Waterhouse
Defamation, Constitutional, Civil Procedure Rules
The respondent, a neighbour of the claimant, had fallen into dispute with the claimant, and issued a leaflet and signs alleging fraud. The claimants obtained an injunction, and in the absence of a substantive defence, judgement. He claimed that the judgement had deprived him of his right to a jury trial because the case involved an allegation of fraud. Held: The rule was ultra vires section 1(3) of the Act. It was not for a judge to pre-empt a possibly perverse jury finding. The right is a fundamental, not a procedural right, and was outside the power of the Rules Committee. The right is guaranteed by statute, and cannot be taken away by a delegated legislation. The rule which allowed summary judgment to be entered in all cases was a denial of that right. However the rule, as amended, allowed an exception in cases of some compelling reason. The right to jury trial in defamation case was such a compelling reason. The Act provided exceptions to the otherwise absolute right to elect for jury trial, and the list of exceptions in the act was complete and exclusive. There was no power in delegated legislation to repeal such a fundamental right given by primary legislation.
Civil Procedure Rules Part 24.2(b) - Defamation Act 1981 - Supreme Court Act 1981 1(3) 69
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
A Local Authority v A Mother and Child; CA 20-Dec-2000 - [2000] EWCA Civ 339
