Mereworth 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 as bound to fail. It is the sole and exclusive right of the House to decide who was entitled to a writ of summons. The court had no jurisdiction. It was clear that the words ‘by virtue of’ in section 1 of the 1999 Act were intended to defeat any right of someone to claim by virtue of heredity. Nor was an hereditary peerage a possession within Article 6.

Lewison J
[2011] EWHC 1589 (Ch), [2012] 2 WLR 192, [2012] Ch 325
House of Lords Act 1999 1
England and Wales
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
CitedDe la Cierva Osorio de Moscoso and Others v Spain ECHR 1999
A nobiliary title cannot be regarded as amounting to a possession. . .
CitedBradlaugh v Gossett 9-Feb-1884
Bradlaugh, though duly elected Member for a Borough, was refused by the Speaker to administer oath and was excluded from the House by the serjeant at arms. B challenged the action.
Held: The matter related to the internal management of the . .
CitedX v The United Kingdom ECHR 1978
(Commission) The right to participate in the work of the House of Lords cannot be regarded as a civil right within the meaning of Article 6. The Commission stated: ‘It is of the opinion that such a right, connected as it is to the composition of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.441632