(Jamaica) The appellants were shareholders in failed financial institutions. Arrangements were made which compensated creditors and depositors, through the contribution of funds by the government, but shareholders were not compensated. The Attorney General in the case had served in the government which made the arrangements, and they said he should have disqualified himself.
Held: There was no evidence of his being involved in the promotion of the bill being challenged, and that claim failed. They argued also that the bill had taken their property in contravention of the constitution. The arrangements made were temporary, and were regulatory rather than a confiscatory nature, and the appellants were not entitled to compensation.
Citations:
[2001] UKPC 33
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – Davidson v Scottish Ministers HL 15-Jul-2004
The claimant had sought damages for the conditions in which he had been held in prison in Scotland. He later discovered that one of the judges had acted as Lord Advocate representing as to the ability of the new Scottish Parliamentary system to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Constitutional, Natural Justice, Commonwealth
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159473