Harb v HRH Prince Abdul Aziz: ChD 9 Jun 2014

The Defendant applies under CPR 11.1 for an order declaring that the court has no jurisdiction to try this claim against him on the grounds that the claim is barred by the defence of state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978.

Rose J
[2014] EWHC 1807 (Ch), [2014] 1 WLR 4437, [2015] 1 All ER 77, [2014] WLR(D) 248
Bailii, WLRD
Civil Procedure Rules 11.1, State Immunity Act 1978
England and Wales

Constitutional, Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.526361

Castle v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 24 Jan 2014

The defendant appealed from his conviction for having driven in excess of a variable speed limit on the motorway. He said that the Order under which the speed limit had been imposed was irregular.

Pitchford LJ, Cranston
[2014] RTR 19, [2014] WLR(D) 33, (2014) 178 JP 285, [2014] EWHC 587 (Admin), [2014] 1 WLR 4279
Bailii, WLRD
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 14, M62 Motorway (Junction 25 to Junction 30) (Temporary Restriction and Prohibition of Traffic) Order 2011, Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Procedure Regulations 1992 3
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedCarltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works CA 1943
Ministers May Act through Civil Servants
The plaintiffs owned a factory which was to be requisitioned. They sought a judicial review of the lawfulness of the order making the requisition, saying that the 1939 Regulations had been implemented not by the Minister as required, but by an . .
CitedLewisham Borough Council v Roberts CA 1949
The council sought to exercise its powers under the Act to take possession of part of the defendant’s property.
Held: Denning LJ said: ‘It is necessary to consider the nature of the power to requisition land. It is only a power to take . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Oladehinde HL 18-Oct-1990
A decision at Senior Executive Officer level was accepted as appropriate in a deportation case. There was an express form of delegation, and acts of the immigration officers required to be regarded as the acts of the Home Secretary.
Lord . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Social Security ex parte Sherwin (a Patient By Her Next Friend Sherwin) Admn 16-Feb-1996
An official in the Benefits Agency, part of the Department of Health and Social Security, suspended an income support/severe disability premium payable to the appellant. The court was asked whether the decision of the Agency, made under the . .

Cited by:
CitedBourgass and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 29-Jul-2015
The Court considered the procedures when a prisoner is kept in solitary confinement, otherwise described as ‘segregation’ or ‘removal from association’, and principally whether decisions to keep the appellants in segregation for substantial periods . .
CitedBourgass and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 29-Jul-2015
The Court considered the procedures when a prisoner is kept in solitary confinement, otherwise described as ‘segregation’ or ‘removal from association’, and principally whether decisions to keep the appellants in segregation for substantial periods . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Constitutional

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522554

Bancoult, Regina (on The Application of) (No 3) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs: SC 8 Feb 2018

Diplomatic Protection Lost to Public Domain

The claimant challenged the use of a Marine Protected Area Order to exclude the Chagossians from their homelands on their British Indian Overseas Territory. They had sought to have admitted and used in cross examination of witnesses leaked diplomatic material which they said would show that the decision to request the Order arose from an improper motive.
Held: Though parts of a diplomatic mission archive were inviolable, this document may have been obtained in fact from the US State Department or similar and was no longer part of that archive. It was admissible.

Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed
[2018] UKSC 3, UKSC 2015/0022, [2018] 1 WLR 973, [2018] 2 All ER 945, [2018] Env LR 24, [2018] WLR(D) 79
Bailii, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 28 Jun 2017 AM Video, SC 28 Jun 2017 pm Video, SC 29 Jun 2017 pm Video, SC 29 Jun 2017 am Video, WLRD, Bailii Summary
Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 2(1), Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 24 27(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
At First Instance (Admn)Bancoult, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Admn 11-Jun-2013
The claimant, displaced from the Chagos Archipelago, challenged a decision by the respondent to create a no-take Marine Protected Area arround the island which would make life there impossible if he and others returned. The respondent renewed his . .
Appeal from (CA)Bancoult, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs CA 23-May-2014
The appellant wished to challenge the decision made by the respondent to declare a ‘no-take’ Marine Protected Area’ covering their former home islands of Chagos. They sought to have entered in evidence of an improper motive in the Minister making . .
CitedRex v Rose 1946
(Quebec Court of King’s Bench, Appeal Side) Rose was convicted on charges of conspiracy to act with a group of Russian and Canadian subjects in a manner which was prejudicial to the safety of Canada. Part of the evidence was contained in documents . .
CitedFayed v Al-Tajir CA 1987
The de facto head of the Embassy of the United Arab Emirates in London was sued by Mr Fayed in respect of an Embassy communication addressed to an Embassy counsellor. Diplomatic immunity had been waived, but the question remained whether the . .
CitedShearson Lehman Brothers Inc v Maclaine Watson and Co Ltd and International Tin Council (Intervener) (No. 2) HL 1988
Article 7(1) of the International Tin Council (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1972 provided that the ITC ‘shall have the like inviolability of official archives as in accordance with the 1961 Convention Articles is accorded in respect of the . .
CitedAttorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) (‘Spycatcher’) HL 13-Oct-1988
Loss of Confidentiality Protection – public domain
A retired secret service employee sought to publish his memoirs from Australia. The British government sought to restrain publication there, and the defendants sought to report those proceedings, which would involve publication of the allegations . .
See AlsoChagos Islanders v The Attorney General, Her Majesty’s British Indian Ocean Territory Commissioner QBD 9-Oct-2003
The Chagos Islands had been a British dependent territory since 1814. The British government repatriated the islanders in the 1960s, and the Ilois now sought damages for their wrongful displacement, misfeasance, deceit, negligence and to establish a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.604213

Wightman, MSP and Others, Reclaiming Motion By v The Advocate General: SCS 20 Mar 2018

Art 50 withdrawal possibility review to proceed

Petition seeking judicial review of the United Kingdom Government’s ‘position’ on the revocability of a notice of intention to withdraw from the European Union in terms of Article 50.2 of the Treaty on European Union.

[2018] ScotCS CSIH – 18
Bailii
Scotland
Cited by:
At Outer HouseWightman MSP and Others for Judicial Review v The Secretary of State for Exiting The European Union SCS 8-Jun-2018
The Petitioners sought a declaration that the Article 50 notice given by the UK government could be withdrawn by the UK without the consent of the EU.
Held: The matter was referred to the CJEU for a preliminary answer to the question: ‘Where, . .
At Outer HouseWightman and Others v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union ECJ 4-Dec-2018
Opinion – Unilateral withdrawal of Art 50 Notice
Opinion – Right of withdrawal from the European Union – Notification of the intention to withdraw – Withdrawal of the United Kingdom (Brexit)
Question referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Article 50 TEU – Right of withdrawal from . .
At Outer HouseWightman and Others v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union ECJ 10-Dec-2018
Art 50 Notice withrawable unilaterally
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 50 TEU – Notification by a Member State of its intention to withdraw from the European Union – Consequences of the notification – Right of unilateral revocation of the notification – Conditions
The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Constitutional, Judicial Review

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.609354

Regina v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Quintavalle (on behalf of Pro-Life Alliance): HL 13 Mar 2003

Court to seek and Apply Parliamentary Intention

The appellant challenged the practice of permitting cell nuclear replacement (CNR), saying it was either outside the scope of the Act, or was for a purpose which could not be licensed under the Act.
Held: The challenge failed. The court was to give effect to the intentions of Parliament, and statutes were to be read accordingly. The words which suggested it only applied to those which had human life given by fertilisation were words of description and not words of exclusive definition.
The words ‘where fertilisation is complete’ were intended not to qualify which embryos were protected, but the time at which they were protected. This was an Act passed for the protection of live human embryos created outside the human body. The essential thrust of section 1(1)(a) was directed to such embryos, not to the manner of their creation. The process was within the scope of the Act, and could accordingly be licensed under it. There was a ‘clear purpose in the legislation’ which could ‘only be fulfilled if the extension [was] made’.
Lord Bingham said: ‘The basic task of the court is to ascertain and give effect to the true meaning of what Parliament has said in the enactment to be construed. But that is not to say that attention should be confined and a literal interpretation given to the particular provisions which give rise to difficulties. Such an approach not only encourages immense preliminary complexity in drafting, since the draftsman will feel obliged to provide expressly for every contingency which may possibly arise. It may also (under the banner of loyalty to the will of Parliament) lead to the frustration of that will, because undue concentration on the minutia of the enactment may lead the court to neglect the purpose which Parliament intended to achieve when it enacted the statute. Every statute other than a pure consolidating statute is, after all, enacted to make some change, or address some problem, or remove some blemish or effect some improvement to the national life. The court’s task, within the permissible bounds of interpretation, is to give effect to Parliament’s purpose. So the controversial provision should be read in the context of the statute as a whole, and the statute as a whole should be read in the historical context of the situation which led to its enactment . . There is, I think, no inconsistency between the rule that statutory language retains the meaning it had when Parliament used it and the rule that a statute is always speaking . . The courts have frequently had to grapple with the question whether a modern invention or activity falls within old statutory language . . a revealing example is found in Grant v Southwestern and County Properties Limited [1975] Ch 185, where Walton J had to decide whether a tape recording falls within the expression ‘document’ in the Rules of the Supreme Court. Pointing out, at p190, that the furnishing of information had been treated as one of the main functions of a document, the judge concluded that a tape recording was a document.’
Lord Steyn noted that Acts were generally to be construed as ‘always speaking’ unless they were in an exceptional category dealing with a particular problem. Otherwise the court was free to apply the meaning of the statute to the present day conditions.

Bingham of Cornhill, Steyn, Hoffmann, Millett, Scott of Foscoe, LL
[2003] UKHL 13, Times 14-Mar-2003, [2003] 2 WLR 692, [2003] 2 AC 687, (2003) 71 BMLR 209, [2003] 1 FCR 577, [2003] 2 All ER 113
House of Lords, Bailii
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 1(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromRegina (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health CA 18-Jan-2002
A cloned cell, a cell produced by cell nuclear replacement came within the definition of embryo under the Act. The Act required that fertilisation was complete.
Held: The act could be applied in a purposive way. The legislative policy was that . .
AdoptedRoyal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom v Department of Health and Social Security HL 2-Jan-1981
The court was asked whether nurses could properly involve themselves in a pregnancy termination procedure not known when the Act was passed, and in particular, whether a pregnancy was ‘terminated by a medical practitioner’, when it was carried out . .
CitedGrant v Southwestern and County Properties Ltd ChD 1974
The court had to decide whether a tape recording fell within the expression ‘document’ in the Rules of the Supreme Court.
Held: The furnishing of information had been treated as one of the main functions of a document, and the tape recording . .
CitedCabell v Markham 1945
In discussing the purposive approach to the interpretation of statutes, the judge held: ‘Of course it is true that the words used, even in their literal sense, are the primary, and ordinarily the most reliable, source of interpreting the meaning of . .
CitedChristopher Hill Ltd v Ashington Piggeries Ltd HL 1972
Mink farmers had asked a compounder of animal foods to make up mink food to a supplied formula.
Held: There was reliance as to the suitability of the ingredients only.
Lord Diplock said: ‘Unless the Sale of Goods Act 1893 is to be allowed . .
CitedRegina v Burstow, Regina v Ireland HL 24-Jul-1997
The defendant was accused of assault occasioning actual bodily harm when he had made silent phone calls which were taken as threatening.
Held: An assault might consist of the making of a silent telephone call in circumstances where it causes . .

Cited by:
CitedQuintavalle, Regina (on the Application of) v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority CA 16-May-2003
A licence was sought so that a couple could have a child who would be tissue typed to establish his suitability to provide an umbilical cord after his birth to help treat his future brother. A licence had been granted subject to conditions, and the . .
CitedKirin-Amgen Inc and others v Hoechst Marion Roussel Limited and others etc HL 21-Oct-2004
The claims arose in connection with the validity and alleged infringement of a European Patent on erythropoietin (‘EPO’).
Held: ‘Construction is objective in the sense that it is concerned with what a reasonable person to whom the utterance . .
CitedQuintavalle v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority HL 28-Apr-2005
The parents of a boy suffering a serious genetic disorder sought IVF treament in which any embryo would be tested for its pre-implantation genetic status. Only an embryo capable of producing the stem cells necessary to cure the boy would be . .
CitedRegina v Z (Attorney General for Northern Ireland’s Reference) HL 19-May-2005
The defendants appealed their convictions for being members of proscribed organisations. They were members of the ‘Real IRA’, but only the IRA was actually proscribed.
Held: The appeals failed. In construing an Act of Parliament it may be of . .
CitedKay v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis HL 26-Nov-2008
The claimant had been involved in a monthly cycle ride through central London which had continued for many years. The ride took place without any central organisation and without any route being pre-planned. They objected to being required to apply . .
CitedHM Treasury v Ahmed and Others SC 27-Jan-2010
The claimants objected to orders made freezing their assets under the 2006 Order, after being included in the Consolidated List of suspected members of terrorist organisations.
Held: The orders could not stand. Such orders were made by the . .
CitedHM Treasury v Ahmed and Others SC 27-Jan-2010
The claimants objected to orders made freezing their assets under the 2006 Order, after being included in the Consolidated List of suspected members of terrorist organisations.
Held: The orders could not stand. Such orders were made by the . .
CitedGaunt v OFCOM and Liberty QBD 13-Jul-2010
The claimant, a radio presenter sought judicial review of the respondent’s finding (against the broadcaster) that a radio interview he had conducted breached the Broadcasting Code. He had strongly criticised a proposal to ban smokers from being . .
CitedBritish Pregnancy Advisory Service v Secretary of State for Health Admn 14-Feb-2011
The claimant sought a declaration that the administration of an abortifacient drug was not ‘any treatment for the termination of pregnancy’ for the purposes of section 1 of the 1967 Act, allowing the piloting and possible adoption of early medical . .
CitedBritish Bankers Association, Regina (on The Application of) v The Financial Services Authority and Another Admn 20-Apr-2011
The claimant sought relief by way of judicial review from a policy statement issued by the defendants regarding the alleged widespread misselling of payment protection insurance policies, and the steps to be taken to compensate the purchasers. They . .
CitedRobertson v Swift SC 9-Sep-2014
Notice Absence did not Remove Right to Cancel
The defendant had contracted to arrange the removal of the claimant’s household goods on moving house. The claimant cancelled the contract, made at his housel, but refused to pay the cancellation fee, saying that the contract not having been made at . .
CitedTrail Riders Fellowship and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Dorset County Council and Others CA 20-May-2013
The Fellowship had applied for orders upgrading public rights of way. The council rejected the applications saying that the digital mapping software used to repare the maps submitted were not compliant with the requirements of the legislation. They . .
CitedEnglish Bridge Union Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The English Sports Council and Others Admn 15-Oct-2015
The claimant Union claimed that the defendant should recognise the game of bridge as a sport. The defendant had adopted a definition from Europe which required physical activity, and the Union said that this was a misconstruction of its Royal . .
CitedTransport for London v Uber London Ltd Admn 16-Oct-2015
TFL sought a declaration as to the legality of the Uber taxi system. Otherwise unlicensed drivers took fares with fees calculated by means of a smartphone app. The Licensed Taxi drivers said that the app operated as a meter and therefore required . .
CitedTrail Riders Fellowship and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Dorset County Council SC 18-Mar-2015
Objection had been made that a plan, used to register a right of way before it would disappear if un-registered, was to the wrong scale and that therefore the application was ineffetive.
Held: The Council’s appeal failed. The plan was too . .
CitedLittlewoods Ltd and Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs SC 1-Nov-2017
The appellants had overpaid under a mistake of law very substantial sums in VAT over several years. The excess had been repaid, but with simple interest and not compound interest, which the now claimed (together with other taxpayers amounting to 17 . .
CitedBarlow v Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council CA 1-Jun-2020
Presumption of dedication dates back.
The claimant tripped over a tree root raising a path in the park. The court was now asked whether the pathway through a public park, but which was not a public right of way, was maintainable at public expense as a highway governed by the 1980 Act. . .
CitedHuman Rights Commission for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland : Abortion) SC 7-Jun-2018
The Commission challenged the compatibility of the NI law relating to banning nearly all abortions with Human Rights Law. It now challenged a decision that it did not have standing to bring the case.
Held: (Lady Hale, Lord Kerr and Lord Wilson . .
CitedOwens v Owens SC 25-Jul-2018
W petitioned for divorce alleging that he ‘has behaved in such a way that [she] cannot reasonably be expected to live with [him]’. H defended, and the petition was rejected as inadequate in the behaviour alleged. She said that the section should be . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health Professions, Administrative, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.179803

Spiers v Ruddy: PC 12 Dec 2007

Limits to Powers in Devolution Cases

Mr Spiers had complained as to the competency of two temporary sheriffs called to hear case against him, saying that the temporary nature of their appointments did not allow them to constitute an independent tribunal. He now complained that the subsequent delay in hearing his cases had prevented a fair trial.
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill referred to the need for reticence, given the Board’s restricted role in deciding devolution issues. It is not for the Board to comment on the test that is applied in fresh evidence appeals which do not raise a devolution issue. Its task is to identify the test where the complaint is of non-disclosure in violation of the article 6(1) right to a fair trial.

Lord Bingham of Cornhill
[2007] UKPC D2, [2008] HRLR 14, 2007 GWD 40-700, 2008 SLT 39, [2008] 2 WLR 608, [2008] 1 AC 873, 2008 SCCR 131
Bailii
Scotland Act 1998, European Convention on Human Rights 6(1)
Scotland
Citing:
CitedRegina v HM Advocate and The Advocate General for Scotland PC 28-Nov-2002
(The High Court of Justiciary) The prosecution had accepted that the matter had been the subject of unreasonable delay, but wished to continue. The defendant sought a plea in bar, on the basis that continuing would infringe his rights.
Held: . .
CitedAttorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 2001) HL 11-Dec-2003
The house was asked whether it might be correct to stay criminal proceedings as an abuse where for delay. The defendants were prisoners in a prison riot in 1998. The case only came on for trial in 2001, when they submitted that the delay was an . .

Cited by:
CitedRutter, Regina (on the Application of) v The General Teaching Council for England Admn 1-Feb-2008
The applicant challenged a decision of disciplinary committee to go ahead with an allegation of misconduct after considerable delay by council and failure to abide by its own rules. After not receiving a notice of proceedings the applicant had . .
CitedMcInnes v Her Majesty’s Advocate SC 10-Feb-2010
The defendant complained that the prosecution had not disclosed the fact that a prosecution witness had convictions, and that had it been disclosed it would have undermined the prosecution. Other statements taken were not disclosed as had later . .
CitedImperial Tobacco Ltd v The Lord Advocate SC 12-Dec-2012
The claimant company said that the 2010 Act was outside the competence of the Scottish Parliament insofar as it severely restricted the capacity of those selling cigarettes to display them for sale. They suggested two faults. First, that the subject . .
CitedHer Majesty’s Advocate v CAM ScSf 21-Nov-2012
The appellant challenged his conviction saying that there had been too long a delay in his trial. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Human Rights

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.262253

Makudi v Baron Triesman of Tottenham In London Borough of Haringey: QBD 1 Feb 2013

makudi_triesmanQBD2013

The claimant, former chairman of the Thailand Football Association, claimed in defamation against the defendant who had been chairman of the English Football Association. The defendant asked the court to strike out the claim, saying that some of the claims were based on privileged evidence given to a parliamentary committee, and associated publications, and the remainder had so restricted a distribution as to make the action an abuse.
Held: The action should be struck out. The occasions of the four publications complained of were all plainly occasions of qualified privilege, and there was no case in malice that could be left to a jury. It was not possible to separate out the defendant’s state of mind when making the publications complained of and his evidence to Parliament.

Tugendhat J
[2013] EWHC 142 (QB)
Bailii
Bill of Rights 1689 9
Citing:
CitedGrainger v Hill CEC 1838
Misuse of Power for ulterior object
D1 and D2 lent C 80 pounds repayable in 1837, secured by a mortgage on C’s vessel. C was to be free to continue to use the vessel in the interim but the law forbade its use if he were to cease to hold its register. In 1836 the Ds became concerned . .
CitedByrne v Deane CA 1937
A notice had been displayed on a golf club notice board. The court considered whether this constituted publication for defamation purposes.
Held: Greene LJ said: ‘Now on the substantial question of publication, publication, of course, is a . .
CitedHorrocks v Lowe HL 1974
The plaintiff complained of an alleged slander spoken at a meeting of the Town Council. The council meeting was an occasion attracting qualified privilege. The judge at trial found that the councillor honestly believed that what he had said in the . .
CitedBroxton v McClelland and Another CA 27-Nov-1996
The judge may disclose to the jury the purpose of a non-party’s involvement as a backer of a party if it is relevant to the case.
Simon Brown LJ said as to an allegation that the claim was an abuse of process: ‘The cases appear to suggest two . .
CitedHamilton v Al Fayed HL 23-Mar-2000
The claimant MP sued the defendant in defamation after he had alleged that the MP had corruptly solicited and received payments and benefits in kind as a reward for parliamentary services rendered.
Held: Parliament has protected by privilege . .
CitedMcLean and Another v Buchanan, Procurator Fiscal and Another PC 24-May-2001
(Appeal from High Court of Justiciary (Scotland)) It was not an infringement of a defendant’s right to a fair trial where the costs of defending the case brought against him would be substantial, but where his solicitors would be paid only a small . .
CitedChase v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd CA 3-Dec-2002
The defendant appealed against a striking out of part of its defence to the claim of defamation, pleading justification.
Held: The Human Rights Convention had not itself changed the conditions for a plea of justification based upon reasonable . .
CitedJennings v Buchanan PC 14-Jul-2004
(New Zealand) (Attorney General of New Zealand intervening) The defendant MP had made a statement in Parliament which attracted parliamentary privilege. In a subsequent newspaper interview, he said ‘he did not resile from his claim’. He defended the . .
CitedDow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel CA 3-Feb-2005
Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable
The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US . .
CitedChurch of Scientology of California v Johnson-Smith QBD 1971
The plaintiff church sued the defendant, a Member of Parliament, for remarks made by the defendant in a television programme. He pleaded fair comment and the plaintiff replied with a plea of malice, relying on statements made in Parliament. The . .
CitedJeynes v News Magazines Ltd and Another CA 31-Jan-2008
Whether Statement defamatory at common law
The claimant appealed against a striking out of her claim for defamation on finding that the words did not have the defamatory meaning complained of, namely that she was transgendered or transsexual.
Held: The appeal failed.
Sir Anthony . .
CitedFairclough Homes Ltd v Summers SC 27-Jun-2012
The respondent had made a personal injury claim, but had then been discovered to have wildly and dishonestly exaggerated the damages claim. The defendant argued that the court should hand down some condign form of punishment, and appealed against . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromMakudi v Baron Triesman of Tottenham CA 26-Feb-2014
Appeal against strike out of claims for defamation and malicious falsehood. The defendant had given evidence to the Culture Media and Sport Select Committee of the House of Commons with material highly critical of the claimant, a member of FIFA’s . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Constitutional

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.470710

Regina v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ex Parte the World Development Movement Ltd: Admn 10 Nov 1994

The Movement sought to challenge decisions of the Secretary of state to give economic aid to the Pergau Dam, saying that it was not required ‘for the purpose of promoting the development’ of Malaysia. It was said to be uneconomic and damaging. It was said by the defendant’s advisers to be an abuse of the aid system. The defendant said the plaintiff had no sufficient interest to mount a challenge. The plaintiff said that as a charity itself distributing aid, the diversion of such huge sums affected its own actions, and this amounted to a proper interest.
Held: The declaration was granted.
The issue of standing went as to jurisdiction, but there was nothing in the case law to deny the applicants such standing. Standing should be treated as a preliminary issue, taken in the legal and factual context of the whole case. As to that: ‘where, as here, the contemplated development is, on the evidence, so economically unsound that there is no economic argument in favour of the case, it is not, in my judgment, possible to draw any material distinction between questions of propriety and regularity on the one hand and questions of economy and efficiency of public expenditure on the other.’

Rose LJ, Scott Baker J
[1995] 1 WLR 386, [1994] EWHC Admin 1, [1995] 1 All ER 611, [1995] COD 211
Bailii
Overseas Development and Co operation Act 1980, Supreme Court Act 1981 31(3)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd HL 9-Apr-1981
Limitations on HMRC discretion on investigation
The Commissioners had been concerned at tax evasion of up to 1 million pounds a year by casual workers employed in Fleet Street. They agreed with the employers and unions to collect tax in the future, but that they would not pursue those who had . .
CitedRegina v HM Inspector of Pollution and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Ex Parte Greenpeace Ltd CA 30-Sep-1993
A campaigning organisation was challenging an official decision which, if stayed, would have adverse financial implications for a commercial company (British Nuclear Fuels PLC) which was not a party to the proceedings. Brooke J had refused a stay. . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Social Services, Ex parte Child Poverty Action Group CA 1989
The applicants sought judicial review of the failures by the respondent in processing claims for benefits. They asked that there should be a declaration that the respondent had a duty to refer a claim to an adjudication officer as soon as it was . .
CitedRegina v Monopolies and Mergers Commission, ex parte Argyll Group plc CA 14-Mar-1986
Weighing Interest of Seeker of Judicial Review
The court recast in simpler language the provision in section 75 empowering the Secretary of State to make a merger reference to the Commission: ‘where it appears to him that it is or may be the fact that arrangements are in progress or in . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte Rees-Mogg Admn 30-Jul-1993
The applicant, a former editor of the Times, sought judicial review of the decision by the respondent to ratify the EU Treaty (Maastricht), saying that it would increase the powers of the European Parliament without it having been approved by . .
CitedRegina v Her Majesty’s Treasury, Ex parte Smedley CA 19-Dec-1984
The applicant sought, as a taxpayer, to object to the proposed payment of andpound;121m to the European Community without an Appropriation Act, but under an Order in Council. The claim was that a draft Order in Council laid by the Treasury before . .
CitedRegina v Knuller (Publishing, Printing and Promotions) Ltd; Knuller etc v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1972
The defendants were charged after pasting up in telephone booths advertisements for homosexual services. They published a magazine with similar advertisements. The House was asked to confirm the existence of an offence of outraging public decency. . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Islington London Borough Council CA 19-Jul-1991
The court considered the proper range within which challenges to affidavit evidence given in judicial reviw proceedings should be kept. Dillon LJ said: ‘The . . argument is stated to have been that an applicant is not entitled to go behind an . .
CitedHanks and Others v Minister of Housing and Local Government 1963
A factor in a decision might be so insignificant that the failure to take it into account could not have materially affected the decision. There might be cases where the factor wrongly omitted was ‘insignificant’ and thus would not justify . .
CitedRegina v Inner London Education Authority, ex parte Westminster City Council 1986
A political purpose can taint an administrative decision with impropriety. . .
CitedRegina v Governor of Brixton Prison, ex parte Soblen CA 1963
Lord Denning MR discussed a decision to deport the applicant. The validity of the Minister’s act: ‘depends on the purpose with which the act is done.: ‘If it was done for an authorised purpose, it was lawful. If it was done professedly for an . .

Cited by:
CitedTweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland HL 13-Dec-2006
(Northern Ireland) The applicant sought judicial review of a decision not to disclose documents held by the respondent to him saying that the refusal was disproportionate and infringed his human rights. The respondents said that the documents were . .
CitedGood Law Project Ltd and Others, Regina (on Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Admn 18-Feb-2021
Failure to Publish Contracts awards details
Challenge to alleged failures by the Secretary of State to comply with procurement law and policy in relation to contracts for goods and services awarded following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Held: The contracts had been awarded under . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.245695

Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers: HL 26 Jul 1977

The claimant sought an injunction to prevent the respondent Trades Union calling on its members to boycott mail to South Africa. The respondents challenged the ability of the court to make such an order.
Held: The wide wording of the statute did not mean that the courts had, in effect, limitless powers to grant interlocutory injunctions whenever they thought it convenient to do so. As to the exceptional nature of the power to invoke the assistance of the civil courts in aid of the criminal law, there must be something more than infringement before the assistance of civil proceedings can be invoked and accorded for the protection or promotion of the interests of the inhabitants of the area.
Lord Diplock said: ‘Authorities about the jurisdiction of the courts to grant declaratory relief are legion. The power to grant a declaration is discretionary; it is a useful power and over the course of the last hundred years it has become more and more extensively used . . Nothing that I have to say is intended to discourage the exercise of judicial discretion in favour of making declarations of right in cases where the jurisdiction to do so exists. But that there are limits to the jurisdiction is inherent in the nature of the relief: a declaration of rights. The only kind of rights with which courts of justice are concerned are legal rights; and a court of civil jurisdiction is concerned with legal rights only when the aid of the court is invoked by one party claiming a right against another party, to protect or enforce the right or to provide a remedy against that other party for infringement of it, or is invoked by either party to settle a dispute between them as to the existence or nature of the right claimed. So for the court to have jurisdiction to declare any legal right it must be one which is claimed by one of the parties as enforceable against an adverse party to the litigation, either as a subsisting right or as one which may come into existence in the future conditionally on the happening of an event . . But the jurisdiction of the court is not to declare the law generally or to give advisory opinions; it is confined to declaring contested legal rights, subsisting or future, of the parties represented in the litigation before it and not of anyone else.’
As to the right to bring private prosecutions, they are ‘a useful constitutional safeguard against capricious, corrupt or biased failure or refusal of those authorities to prosecute offenders against the criminal law.’
Lord Wilberforce noted that the right to bring a private prosecution was ‘a valuable constitutional safeguard against inertia or partiality on the part of authority.’ and ‘That it is the exclusive right of the Attorney-General to represent the public interest – even where individuals might be interested in a larger view of the matter – is not technical, not procedural, not fictional. It is constitutional.’

Lord Wilberforce, Lord Diplock
[1978] AC 435, [1977] UKHL 5, [1977] 3 All ER 70
Bailii
Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925, Post Office Act 1953 58(1) 68, Telegraph Act 1863 45
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedAttorney General of The Dutchy, At The Relation of Mr Vermuden v Sir John Heath nd Others 9-Jul-1690
The Attorney General of the Dutchy Court exhibits an information in behalf of one part-owner of coal-mines, against the other ; outlawry in the relator is a good plea.
In a relator action, the King’s name is only made use of by the form of the . .
CitedShore v Wilson 1842
Parke B said: ‘In the first place, there is no doubt that not only where the language of the instrument is such as the Court does not understand, it is competent to receive evidence of the proper meaning of that language, as when it is written in a . .
CitedEx Parte Newton 19-Apr-1855
The Attorney General having refused his fiat for a writ of error to a defendant convicted of a misdemeanour Held, that in a proper case, the fiat was due ex debito justitia; but that the Attorney General was to determine, on his owri responsibility, . .
CitedLondon County Council v Attorney General 1901
Lord MacNaghten said: ‘Income tax, if I may be pardoned for saying so, is a tax on income. It is not meant to be a tax on anything else.’
Lord Macnaghten said of a relator action: ‘The initiation of the litigation, and the determination of the . .
CitedTriefus and Co Ltd v Post Office CA 1957
The plaintiff sought damages after the defendant lost two mail packets.
Held: Acceptance of a postal packet by the Post Office for transmission to the addressee gives rise to no contractual rights. The court analysed the history of legislation . .
CitedAttorney-General v The Ironmongers’ Company Betton’s Charity 14-Feb-1840
Bequest of residue to a company, to apply the interest of a moiety ‘unto the redemption of British slaves in Turkey or Barbary,’ one-fourth to charity schools in London and its suburbs; and in consideration of the care and pains of the company, the . .
CitedAttorney-General v The Ironmongers’ Company Betton’s Charity 14-Feb-1840
Bequest of residue to a company, to apply the interest of a moiety ‘unto the redemption of British slaves in Turkey or Barbary,’ one-fourth to charity schools in London and its suburbs; and in consideration of the care and pains of the company, the . .

Cited by:
CitedAttorney-General v Able and Others QBD 28-Apr-1983
The Attorney General sought a declaration as to whether it would be the crime of aiding and abetting or counselling and procuring suicide, to distribute a booklet published by the respondent which described various effective ways of committing . .
CitedLegal and General Assurance Society Ltd v CCA Stationery Ltd ChD 12-Dec-2003
The claimant had managed a pension scheme for the respondent company. It now challenged a finding of maladministration of the scheme, with respect to the methods of calculation of discounts applicable to those leaving the scheme.
Held: Since . .
CitedStoke-On-Trent City Council v B and Q (Retail) Ltd HL 1984
The defendants had been trading on Sundays in breach of s.47 of the Shops Act 1950, which, by s.71(1) imposed on every local authority the duty to enforce within their district the provisions of that Act. Parliament has given local authorities a . .
CitedIn Re Z (Local Authority: Duty) FD 3-Dec-2004
Mrs Z suffered a terminal disease, and sought to travel to Switzerland supported and assisted by her husband, so that she could terminate her life. She appealed an injunction obtained by the authority to prevent her leaving.
Held: The . .
CitedBermuda Cablevision Limited and others v Colica Trust Company Limited PC 6-Oct-1997
(Bermuda) An alternative remedy to winding up is available to a shareholder where oppressive conduct is alleged, though the main thrust is that the conduct is unlawful. . .
ConsideredMeadows Indemnity Co Ltd v The Insurance Corporation of Ireland plc and Another CA 1989
A claim was made for declaratory relief.
Held: The Claimant, a re-insurer, did not have locus to claim a declaration that the main insurer could avoid the main contract of insurance, to which the Claimant was not a party. The court considered . .
CitedCabvision Ltd v Feetum and others CA 20-Dec-2005
The company challenged the appointment of administrative receivers, saying there had been no insolvency.
Held: No question arises of a derivative action arose here. The claimant had standing to apply for declaratory relief since they were . .
CitedIn Re S (Hospital Patient: Court’s Jurisdiction) CA 6-Mar-1995
The carer of S sought a declaration that S’s wife and son were not entitled to remove him to Norway.
Held: The court may try an issue as to the patient’s care as between rival claimants as carers. It should not tightly restrict list of carers . .
CitedOxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council and others HL 24-May-2006
Application had been made to register as a town or village green an area of land which was largely a boggy marsh. The local authority resisted the application wanting to use the land instead for housing. It then rejected advice it received from a . .
CitedJones v Whalley HL 26-Jul-2006
The appellant had assaulted the respondent. He had accepted a caution for the offence, but the claimant had then pursued a private prosecution. He now appealed refusal of a stay, saying it was an abuse of process.
Held: The defendant’s appeal . .
CitedBrown v HM Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, the Executors of the Estate of and others FD 5-Jul-2007
The plaintiff sought the unsealing of the wills of the late Queen Mother and of the late Princess Margaret, claiming that these would assist him establishing that he was the illegitimate son of the latter.
Held: The application was frivolous. . .
CitedEwing, Regina (on the Application of) v Davis Admn 2-Jul-2007
The court considered whether the District Judge had been correct to refuse to issue summonses for private prosecutions where there was a suggestion that only a private dispute at stake.
Held: It ‘never was any requirement that a private . .
CitedOffice of Fair Trading v Foxtons Ltd ChD 17-Jul-2008
Complaint was made that the Foxtons standard terms of acting in residential lettings were unfair. Foxtons objected to the jurisdiction of the Claimant to intervene.
Held: On a challenge to an individual contract, the court would be able to see . .
CitedBirmingham City Council v Shafi and Another CA 30-Oct-2008
The Council appealed a finding that the court did not have jurisdiction to obtain without notice injunctions to control the behaviour of youths said to be creating a disturbance, including restricting their rights to enter certain parts of the city . .
CitedFeetum v Levy CA 2006
Jonathan Parker LJ discussed the granting of declarations: ‘things have indeed moved on since the Meadows case was decided; and the courts should not nowadays apply such a restrictive meaning to the passage in Lord Diplock’s speech in Gouriet’s . .
CitedRolls-Royce plc v Unite the Union CA 14-May-2009
The parties disputed whether the inclusion of length of service within a selection matrix for redundancy purposes would amount to unlawful age discrimination. The court was asked whether it was correct to make a declaratory judgment when the case . .
CitedRolls-Royce plc v Unite the Union CA 14-May-2009
The parties disputed whether the inclusion of length of service within a selection matrix for redundancy purposes would amount to unlawful age discrimination. The court was asked whether it was correct to make a declaratory judgment when the case . .
CitedScopelight Ltd and Others v Chief of Police for Northumbria CA 5-Nov-2009
The claimant sought return of items removed by the defendants under the 1984 Act. A decision had been made against a prosecution by the police. The police wished to hold onto the items to allow a decision from the second defendant.
Held: The . .
CitedRollins, Regina v SC 28-Jul-2010
The court was asked whether the Financial Services Authority had a power to prosecute money laundering offences under the 2002 Act, or whether, as contended by the defendant, its powers were limited to sections under the 2000 Act.
Held: The . .
CitedGujra, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Prosecution Service SC 14-Nov-2012
The appellant had twice begun private prosecutions only to have them taken over by the CPS and discontinued. He complained that a change in their policy on such interventions interfered with his statutory and constitutional right to bring such a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Litigation Practice, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.181965

Leonesio v Ministero Della Agricoltura E Foreste: ECJ 17 May 1972

leonisioECJ197205

ECJ Measures Adopted By An Institution – 1. A community regulation has direct effect and is, as such, capable of creating individual rights which national courts must protect.
Pecuniary rights against the state, conferred by such a regulation, arise when the conditions set out in the regulation are complied with and it is not possible at a national level to render the exercise of them subject to implementing provisions other than those which might be required by the regulation itself.
2. So as to apply with equal force with regard to nationals of all the member states, community regulations become part of the legal system applicable within the national territory, which must permit the direct effect provided for in article 189 to operate in such a way that reliance thereon by individuals may not be frustrated by domestic provisions or practices.
Budgetary provisions of a member state cannot therefore hinder the direct applicability of the community provision and consequently of the exercise of individual rights created by such a provision.
3. Once all the conditions laid down in regulations nos 1975/69 and 2195/69 were fulfilled, those regulations conferred on farmers a right, which national courts must protect, to payment of the slaughtering subsidy by the member state to which they belonged; such rights could be exercised in each case at the end of the period of two months following the establishment of the proof of slaughter as provided in article 10 of regulation no 2195/69. As from that time, the abovementioned regulations give the farmer the right to require payment of the subsidy without that member state’ s being able to rely on arguments based on any legislative provisions or administrative practices to withhold such payment.

[1972] ECR 287, R-93/71, [1972] EUECJ R-93/71
Bailii

European, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.214165

G and C Kreglinger v The New Patagonian Meat and Cold Storage Company: HL 20 Nov 1913

Mortgagor’s collateral dvantage is not a clog

The appellant woolbrokers had lent the respondent andpound;10,000 with a floating charge over its undertaking. The loan agreement provided that, for five years, the appellants would have first refusal over all sheepskins sold by the company. The company paid off the loan, but the appellants claimed that they were entitled to continue to exercise their right of first refusal.
Held: The right of first refusal not part of the mortgage transaction; but was a collateral contract entered into as a condition of the company obtaining the loan. The appellants could therefore entitled to enforce it. Whilst courts are loathe to interfere with freedom of contract, they will intervene where evidence showed that terms imposed by a mortgagee are unconscientious. To do so, the courts will consider both the form and substance of the transaction.
Lord Parker of Waddington discussed the survival of the rule against a clog on an equity of redemption, saying that it was not objectionable for a mortgage to confer a collateral advantage upon a mortgagee: ‘The last of the usury laws was repealed in 1854, and thenceforward there was, in my opinion, no intelligent reason why mortgages to secure loans should be on any different footing from other mortgages. In particular, there was no reason why the old rule against a mortgagee being able to stipulate for a collateral advantage should be maintained in any form or with any modification. Borrowers of money were fully protected from oppression by the pains always taken by the Court of Chancery to see that the bargain between borrower and lender was not unconscionable. Unfortunately, at the time when the last of the usury laws was repealed, the origin of the rule appears to have been more or less forgotten, and the cases decided since such repeal exhibit an extraordinary diversity of judicial opinion on the subject. It is little wonder that, with the existence in the authorities of so many contradictory theories, persons desiring to repudiate a fair and reasonable bargain have attempted to obtain the assistance of the Court in that behalf. My Lords, to one who, like myself, has always admired the way in which the Court of Chancery succeeded in supplementing our common law system in accordance with the exigencies of a growing civilization, it is satisfactory to find, as I have found on analysing the cases in question, that no such attempt has yet been successful. In every case in which a stipulation by a mortgagee for a collateral advantage has, since the repeal of the usury laws, been held invalid, the stipulation has been open to objection, either (1) because it was unconscionable, or (2) because it was in the nature of a penal clause clogging the equity arising on failure to exercise a contractual right to redeem, or (3) because it was in the nature of a condition repugnant as well to the contractual as to the equitable right.’ and
‘The nature of the equitable right [to redeem] is so well known that, upon a mortgage in the usual form to secure a money payment on a certain day, it must be taken to be a term of the real bargain between the parties that the property shall remain redeemable in equity after failure to exercise the contractual right. Any fetter or clog imposed by the instrument of mortgage on this equitable right may properly be regarded as a repugnant condition and as such invalid. There are, however, repugnant conditions which cannot be regarded as mere penalties intended to deter the exercise of the equitable right which arises when the time for the exercise of the contractual right has gone by, but which are repugnant to the contractual right itself. A condition to the effect that if the contractual right is not exercised by the time specified the mortgagee shall have the option of purchasing the mortgaged property may properly be regarded as a penal clause. It is repugnant only to the equity and not to the contractual right itself. But a condition that the mortgagee is to have such an option for a period which begins before the time for the exercise of the equitable right has arrived, or which reserves to the mortgagee any interest in the property after the exercise of the contractual right, is inconsistent not only with the equity but with the contractual right itself, and might, I think, be held invalid for repugnancy even in a Court of Law.’
As to the doctrine of precedent: ‘To follow previous authorities, so far as they lay down principles, is essential if the law is to be preserved from becoming unsettled and vague. In this respect previous decisions of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction are more binding in a system of jurisprudence such as ours than in systems where the paramount authority is that of a code. When a previous case has not laid down any principle, but has merely decided that a particular set of facts illustrates an existing rule, there are few more fertile sources of fallacy than to search in it for what is simply resemblances in circumstances, and to erect a previous decision into a governing precedent merely on this account. To look for anything except the principle established or recognized by previous decisions is really to weaken and not to strengthen the importance of precedent. The consideration of cases which turn on particular facts may often be useful for edification, but it can rarely yield authoritative guidance.’ The evolving nature of the equitable jurisdiction is ‘to mould the rules which they apply in accordance with the exigencies at the time’.
Lord Parker explained the decision in Bradley v Carritt: ‘The real question, in my opinion, was whether it [the clause in question] was inconsistent with or repugnant to the contractual right of the mortgagee [quaere, mortgagor] to have his property restored unfettered if he paid the money secured with interest as provided in the agreement, and the consequential equitable right to have the property so restored if he paid his money with interest and costs at any time. On this point there was room for a difference of opinion . . There is really no difficulty in the decision itself. It is merely to the effect that the case was within the principles of Noakes v Rice. Lords Macnaghten, Davey, and Robertson all thought that if the stipulations in question were binding after redemption the mortgagor would not get back his property intact; in other words, that the stipulation was repugnant both to the contractual right and the equity.’
Lord Mersey agreeing, said that the equitable doctrine prohibiting the imposition of a clog on the mortgagor’s right to redeem is ‘like an unruly dog, which, if not securely chained to its own kennel, is prone to wander into places where it ought not to be’.
Viscount Haldane, Lord Chancellor, said: ‘the other and wider principle remains unshaken, that it is the essence of a mortgage that in the eye of a Court of Equity it should be a mere security for money, and that no bargain can be validly made which will prevent the mortgagor from redeeming on payment of what is due, including principal, interest and costs. He may stipulate that he will not pay off his debt, and so redeem the mortgage, for a fixed period. But whenever the right to redeem arises out of the doctrine of equity, he is precluded from fettering it. This principle has become an integral part of our system of jurisprudence and must be faithfully adhered to.’
The issue for decision was: ‘What was the true character of the transaction? Did the appellants make a bargain such that the right to redeem was cut down, or did they simply stipulate for a collateral undertaking, outside and clear of the mortgage, which would give them an exclusive option of purchase of the sheepskins of the respondents. The question is in my opinion not whether the two contracts were made at the same moment and evidenced by the same instrument, but whether they were in substance a single and undivided contract or two distinct contracts.’ The agreement for a right to purchase the respondent’s sheepskins was a collateral bargain ‘the entering into which was a preliminary and separable condition of the loan’.

Viscount Haldane, Lord Parker
[1914] AC 25, [1913] UKHL 1
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedNoakes and Co Ltd v Rice HL 17-Dec-1901
Rule Against Clog on equity of Redemption
A mortgage of a leasehold public house contained a covenant with the mortgagee, a brewery, that the mortgagor and his successors in title would not, during the continuance of the leasehold term and whether or not any money should be owing on the . .
ExplainedBradley v Carritt HL 11-May-1903
Shares in a tea company had been mortgaged to secure a loan from a broker on terms that the mortgagor would seek to ensure that the mortgagee should thereafter have sale of the company’s teas. The mortgage contained a covenant that, if the company . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina v Naviede CACD 21-Mar-1997
The defendant appealed from his conviction for dishonesty. He said that he should have allowed hi to represent himself as to certain aspect of his case, but to have legal representation for others.
Held: The judge was right to reject such a . .
AppliedCityland and Property (Holdings) Ltd v Dabrah 1968
The mortgage secured a debt of pounds 2,900 owing by the mortgagor to the mortgagee. The mortgagor covenanted to pay the mortgagee pounds 4,553 by monthly instalments over a six year period. The return to the mortgagee was in the form of a premium . .
CitedBrighton and Hove City Council v Audus ChD 26-Feb-2009
The claimant was the proprietor of a fourth legal charge on a title. It sought a declaration that a second charge in favour of the defendant was void as a clog on the proprietor’s equity of redemption. An advance secured by a first charge, also in . .
CitedWarnborough Ltd v Garmite Ltd CA 5-Nov-2003
Warnborough (W) sold real property to Garmite (G), leaving the purchase price outstanding but secured by a mortgage in favour of W. G also granted W an option to repurchase the property. The issue was whether the option to repurchase was ‘a clog on . .
CitedWarnborough Ltd v Garmite Ltd ChD 12-Jan-2006
The claimant sought specific performance under a contract for sale of two leasehold properties. The defendant claimed inter alia that the agreement worked as a clog on the equity of the properties. . .
CitedJones v Morgan CA 28-Jun-2001
The claimant appealed against an order refusing him enforcement an agreement for the purchase of a one half share in a property. The judge had found the agreement to be unconscionable.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The judge had wrongly . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Contract, Equity

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.189952

HP Bulmer Ltd and Another v J Bollinger Sa and others: CA 22 May 1974

Necessity for Reference to ECJ

Lord Denning said that the test for whether a question should be referred to the European Court of Justice is one of necessity, not desirability or convenience. There are cases where the point, if decided one way, would shorten the trial greatly. But if decided the other way, it would mean that the trial would have to go its full length. It would not in those circumstances be ‘necessary’ for a preliminary ruling to be sought. When the facts are investigated, it might turn out to have been quite unnecessary. For this reason, Lord Denning concluded that as a rule it is only after the facts are ascertained that a determination can be made that a reference is necessary.
Denning described the effect of the EC Treaty: ‘The first and fundamental point is that the Treaty concerns only those matters which have a European element, that is to say, matters which affect people or property in the nine countries of the Common Market besides ourselves. The Treaty does not touch any of the matters which concern solely the mainland of England and the people in it. These are still governed by English law. They are not affected by the Treaty. But when we come to matters with a European element, the Treaty is like an incoming tide. It flows into the estuaries and up the rivers. It cannot be held back. Parliament has decreed that the Treaty is henceforward to be part of our law. It is equal in force to any statute.’
. . And: ‘ In the task of interpreting the Treaty, the English Judges are no longer the final authority. They no longer carry the law in their breasts. They are no longer in a position to give rulings which are of binding force. The supreme tribunal for interpreting the Treaty is the European Court of Justice, at Luxembourg. Our Parliament has so decreed.’
Stephenson LJ discussed article 177 saying: ‘(i) The rulings which the European Court has jurisdiction to give under Article 177(1) are not strictly ‘preliminary’. They do not have to be given ‘in limine’ before the Court of the Member State crosses the threshold and begins to hear a dispute, but they can be given at any time before the Court finishes hearing the dispute by giving judgment. The ruling is in that sense ‘prejudicial’, not necessarily preliminary, though it may be.
(ii) Article 177(2) confers a power, whereas Article 177(3) imposes an obligation. A lower Court of a Member State ‘may’ request a ruling, a final Court ‘shall’. The contrast in the language is as clear as in the section of the English statute which this Court construed in Re Baker (1890) 44 Ch. Div. 262, and has the same effect: the lower Court is trusted with a discretion, the final Court is not. All attempts to blur the distinction between the power of the one and the duty of the other when a question is raised under Article 177(1) break down on the different wording of Article 177(2) and (3). Section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972 distinguishes powers from obligations, and so by this wording does Article 177, by whatever canon of construction it is interpreted. The European Court has always recognised that distinction; e.g. in Da Costa en Schaake N.V. and Others v. Nederlande Belasting -administratie (1963) 2 C.M.L.R. 224, 237; and has recently emphasised it and described the power given to the national Courts by Article 177(2) as conferring on them ‘the widest discretion’, which no domestic Court of Appeal can fetter: Firma Rheinmuhlen Dusseldorf v. Enfuhr und Vorratsstelle fur Getreide und Futtermittal, case 166/73 shortly reported in The Times Newspaper of 16th February 1974; to which my Lord has already referred,
(iii) The only questions which the Courts of a Member State can, or in some cases must, refer to the European Court are questions of law within Article 177(1) on which decisions are necessary to enable them to give judgment. If they consider that they can give judgment in the dispute in which the question is raised without deciding the question, they need not and indeed must not trouble the European Court by requesting a ruling or bringing the matter before it. Section 3(1) of the 1972 Act recognises that questions within Article 177(1) are questions of law and may be for determination by our Courts without referring them to the European Court. That is how the Courts of Member States have rightly proceeded, including English Judges, Mr. Justice Whitford among them: Lerose Ltd. v. Hawick Jersey International Ltd. (1972) 12 C.M.L.R. 83.’

Lord Denning MR, Stamp, Stephenson LJJ
[1974] EWCA Civ 14, [1974] 2 All ER 1226, [1974] 3 WLR 202, [1974] Ch 401
Bailii
Regulation 816/76 30, Regulation 817/70 12, European Community Act 1972 2(1) 83, Treaty of Rome 177
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedVine Products Ltd v Mackenzie and Co Ltd (the Sherry Case) ChD 1969
Assorted sherry producers and shippers to write to producers and importers of ‘British Sherry’ asking them to stop using the word ‘sherry’ other than in relation to wines emanating from the Jerez district of Spain. Those producers and importers to . .
CitedBollinger v Costa Brava Wine Co Ltd 1960
Intruders into the market brought into England a wine somewhat similar to Champagne. It had been produced in the Costa Brava district of Spain. They marketed it under the name ‘Spanish Champagne’. The French growers and shippers brought an action to . .
CitedJohn Walker and Sons Ltd v Henry Ost and Co Ltd ChD 1970
The plaintiff whisky distiller claimed in passing-off against the defendant who supplied bottles and labels to a distiller in Ecuador.
Held: An injunction was granted. Having cited from Singer v Loog, the court added: ‘I would be slow to . .
CitedDa Costa En Schaake Nv, Jacob Meijer Nv, Hoechst-Holland Nv v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration ECJ 27-Mar-1963
ECJ (Preliminary Ruling ) 1. The obligation imposed by the third paragraph of article 177 of the EEC Treaty upon national courts or tribunals of last instance may be deprived of its purpose by reason of the . .
CitedVan Gend En Loos v Administratie Der Belastingen ECJ 5-Feb-1963
LMA The Dutch customs authorities had introduced an import charge in breach of Art.12 [Art.25] EC. This Article prohibits MS from introducing between themselves any new customs duties on imports or exports or any . .
CitedHessische Knappschaft v Maison Singer And Sons ECJ 9-Dec-1965
Procedure – 1. Since the right to determine the questions to be brought before the court devolves upon the court or tribunal of the member state alone, the parties may not change their tenor or have them declared to be without purpose.
2. The . .
CitedFratelli Grassi Fu Davide v Italian Finance Administration. (Questions Referred To The Court For A Preliminary Ruling) ECJ 15-Jun-1972
ECJ According to article 177 of the Treaty it is for the national court and not the parties to the main action to bring a matter before the court of justice.
Since the power to formulate the questions to be . .

Cited by:
CitedCommissioners of Customs and Excise v Aps Samex 1983
It is generally right for the court to find the facts before referring questions of law to the European Court of Justice.
Bingham J restated the four requirement sfor a reference set out in Bulmer, saying: ‘(1) Will the point be substantially . .
CitedFisher and Others v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 14-Aug-2014
FTTTx Income Tax – Anti-avoidance – transfer of assets abroad code – s739 ICTA 1988 – appellants were shareholders in UK bookmaker which transferred its telebetting business to Gibraltar – purpose of avoiding . .
AppliedCoast Telecom Ltd v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 11-Apr-2012
Procedure – application for stay pending determination of references to CJEU – whether First-tier Tribunal bound by Mobilx – yes – whether determination of references would materially assist determination of appeal – no – whether expedient to order . .
CitedThe Number (UK) Ltd and Another v Office of Communications CAT 24-Nov-2008
. .
CitedVehicle and Operator Services Agency v Jones (Nell) Admn 5-Oct-2005
The Agency appealed against dismissal of its allegation that the defendant had wrongfully withdrawn his tachograph record. He had lifted the top of the tachograph which had the effect if disengaging the marker without actually removing the record . .
CitedFage UK Ltd and Another v Chobani UK Ltd and Another CA 28-Jan-2014
Lewison LJ said: ‘Appellate courts have been repeatedly warned, by recent cases at the highest level, not to interfere with findings of fact by trial judges, unless compelled to do so. This applies not only to findings of primary fact, but also to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Intellectual Property, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.262729

Feather v The Queen: 1865

Mr Feather had invented way of protecting ships against shot and obtained an exclusive patent. The Crown then had a ship constructed in a way that infringed the patent. As patentee Mr Feather asked for recompense; by petition of right he asked for pounds 10,000 as compensation for the damage he had suffered. Much of the case was concerned with whether an exclusive patent granted by the Crown barred free use by the Crown of the method revealed by the patent.
Held: It did not. As to whether a petition of right could be used against the Crown in respect of the alleged wrong, the court (obiter) held that Tobin was correct.
Cockburn CJ said: ‘Now, apart altogether from the question of procedure, a petition of right in respect of a wrong, in the legal sense of the term, shews no right to legal redress against the Sovereign. For the maxim that the King can do no wrong applies to personal as well as to political wrongs; and not only to wrongs done personally by the Sovereign, if such a thing can be supposed to be possible, but to injuries done to a subject by the authority of the Sovereign. For, from the maxim that the King cannot do wrong it follows, as a necessary consequence, that the King cannot authorize wrong. For to authorize a wrong to be done is to do a wrong; inasmuch as the wrongful act, when done, becomes, in law, the act of him who directed or authorized it to be done. It follows that a petition of right which complains of a tortious act by the Crown, or by a public servant by the authority of the Crown, discloses no matter of complaint which can entitle the petitioner to redress. As in the eye of the law no such wrong can be done, so, in law, no right to redress can arise; and the petition, therefore, which rests on such a foundation falls at once to the ground. Let it not, however, be supposed that a subject sustaining a legal wrong at the hands of the minister of the Crown is without a remedy. As the Sovereign cannot authorize wrong to be done, the authority of the Crown would afford no defence to an action brought for an illegal act committed by an officer of the Crown.’ and

‘It is established on the best authority that, in construing grants from the Crown, a different rule of construction prevails from that by which grants from one subject to another are to be construed. In a grant from one subject to another, every intendment is to be made against the grantor, in favour of the grantee, in order to give full effect to the grant; but in grants from the Crown an opposite rule prevails. Nothing passes except that which is expressed, or which is matter of necessity and unavoidable intendment in order to give effect to the plain and undoubted intention of the grant. And in no species of grant does this rule of construction more especially obtain than in grants which emanate from and operate in derogation of, the prerogative of the Crown.’

Cockburn CJ
(1865) 6 B and S 257
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedTobin v The Queen 1864
The Commander of a Queen’s ship, employed in the suppression of the slave trade on the coast of Africa, seized a schooner belonging to the suppliant, which he suspected of being engaged in slave traffic. It being inconvenient to take the ship to . .

Cited by:
CitedRoberts v Swangrove Estates Ltd and Another ChD 14-Mar-2007
The court heard preliminary applications in a case asserting acquisition of land by adverse possession, the land being parts of the foreshore of the Severn Estuary.
Held: A person may acquire title to part of the bed of a tidal river by . .
CitedCrown Estate Commissioners v Roberts and Another ChD 13-Jun-2008
The defendant claimed ownership as Lord Marcher of St Davids of historical rights in foreshores in Pembrokeshire. The claimants sought removal of his cautions against first registration.
Held: Lewison J explored the history of manorial . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.267402

Martin v Her Majesty’s Advocate: SC 3 Mar 2010

The claimant challenged the law extending the power of Sheriffs sitting alone to impose sentences of up to one year.
Held: The defendants’ appeal failed (Lord Rodger and Lord Kerr dissenting). The change was within the power of the Scottish Parliament and the challenge failed. The section set out to contribute to the reform of summary justice by reducing pressure on the higher courts. The jurisdiction of a Sheriff was defined by the penalties which he can impose and his powers are quintessentially matter of Scots criminal law. As a rule of Scots criminal law, it did not relate to a reserved matter within the meaning of s.29(2)(b) of the Scotland Act 1998. It was a change in procedure.
Lord Walker said that the expression ‘relates to’ in section 29(2)(b) and (3) was ‘familiar in this sort of context, indicating more than a loose or consequential connection, and the language of section 29(3), referring to a provision’s purpose and effect, reinforces that.’

Lord Hope (Deputy President), Lord Rodger, Lord Walker, Lord Brown, Lord Kerr
[2010] UKSC 10, UKSC 2009/0127, 2010 SCL 476, 2010 SLT 412, 2010 SC (UKSC) 40
Bailii, Times, SC, SC Summ, Bailii Summary
Scotland Act 1998 29(2)(b), Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform)(Scotland) Act 2007 45
Scotland
Citing:
CitedLogan and Another v Procurator Fiscal HCJ 2-Jul-2008
The appellant challenged sentences for driving whilst disqualified. The defendant questioned the extent of the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament under judicial scrutiny on grounds other than compliance with Convention rights. . .

Cited by:
CitedJude v Her Majesty’s Advocate SC 23-Nov-2011
The Lord Advocate appealed against three decisions as to the use to be made of interviews where the detainees had not been given access to lawyers. In each case the prosecutor now appealed after their convictions had been overturned in the light of . .
CitedImperial Tobacco Ltd v The Lord Advocate SC 12-Dec-2012
The claimant company said that the 2010 Act was outside the competence of the Scottish Parliament insofar as it severely restricted the capacity of those selling cigarettes to display them for sale. They suggested two faults. First, that the subject . .
CitedLocal Government Byelaws (Wales) Bill 2012 – Reference By The Attorney General for England and Wales SC 21-Nov-2012
Under the 1998 and 2006 Acts, the Welsh Assembly was empowered to pass legislation subject to confirmation by the English Parliament Secretary of State. The Local Government Byelaws (Wales) Bill 2012 was passed by the Assembly and purported to . .
CitedRecovery of Medical Costs for Asbestos Diseases (Wales) Bill (Reference By The Counsel General for Wales) SC 9-Feb-2015
The court was asked whether the Bill was within the competence of the Welsh Assembly. The Bill purported to impose NHS charges on those from whom asbestos related damages were recovered.
Held: The Bill fell outside the legislative competence . .
CitedThe Christian Institute and Others v The Lord Advocate SC 28-Jul-2016
(Scotland) By the 2014 Act, the Scottish Parliament had provided that each child should have a named person to monitor that child’s needs, with information about him or her shared as necessary. The Institute objected that the imposed obligation to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Criminal Sentencing

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.402004

Total Network Sl v Revenue and Customs: HL 12 Mar 2008

The House was asked whether an action for unlawful means conspiracy was available against a participant in a missing trader intra-community, or carousel, fraud. The company appealed a finding of liability saying that the VAT Act and Regulations contained the entire regime.
Held: Criminal conduct at common law or by statute can constitute unlawful means in an unlawful means conspiracy. The protection of the Bill of Rights is available to everyone. Fraudsters and cheats are as much entitled to be protected against the levying of taxes without the authority of Parliament as anyone else. The function of an action of damages is to provide a remedy for interests that are recognised by the law as entitled to protection
‘The statute makes no provision for the recovery of VAT from someone who is not a taxable person within the meaning of section 3. There is, it may be said, a gap in the statute. But this does not mean that the Commissioners have suffered a loss for which they can sue in damages. All that can be said is that payment was made to Alldech which ought not to have been made. It is an amount that can be recovered as a debt due to the Crown from Alldech. It does not change its character as a debt due to the Crown because, when it is sought to be recovered from someone else, it is described as damages. ‘
Lord Scott said: ‘there is, in my opinion, nothing whatever in the Bill of Rights point. It is true that Total are not taxable under the statutory VAT scheme in respect of any of the pleaded transactions, but the claim against Total is not a claim for tax. It is a claim for damages, for loss, caused by the fraudulent conspiracy.’

Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
[2008] UKHL 19, [2008] BPIR 699, [2008] 2 WLR 711, [2008] STI 938, [2008] 1 AC 1174, [2008] STC 644, [2008] BVC 340, [2008] BTC 5216
Bailii, HL
Value Added Tax Act 1994 1(1) 7, Bill of Rights 1688 4
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedTotal Network Sl v Customs and Excise Commissioners CA 31-Jan-2007
The defendants suspected a carousel VAT fraud. The defendants appealed a finding that there was a viable cause of action alleging a ‘conspiracy where the unlawful means alleged is a common law offence of cheating the public revenue’. The defendants . .
CitedGosling v Veley 1850
Wilde CJ said: ‘The rule of law that no pecuniary burden can be imposed upon the subjects of this country, by whatever name it may be called, whether tax, due, rate, or toll, except under clear and distinct legal authority, established by those who . .
CitedAttorney-General v Wilts United Dairies Ltd CA 1921
The Food Controller had been given power under the Defence of the Realm Acts to regulate milk sales. In granting the dairy a licence to buy milk in Cornwall, Devon, Dorset and Somerset, the Food Controller required the Dairy to pay 2d. per imperial . .
CitedAttorney-General v Wilts United Dairies Ltd HL 1922
The House heard an appeal by the Attorney-General against a finding that an imposition of duty on milk sales was unlawful.
Held: The appeal failed. The levy was unlawful. Lord Buckmaster said: ‘Neither of those two enactments enabled the Food . .
CitedInland Revenue Commissioners v Hambrook 1956
The Revenue claimed for loss resulting from its being deprived of the services of a taxing officer due to a vehicle accident.
Held: The action was dismissed. An action for that kind of loss did not lie where its relationship was with an . .
CitedAutologic Holdings Plc and others v Commissioners of Inland Revenue HL 28-Jul-2005
Taxpayer companies challenged the way that the revenue restricted claims for group Corporation Tax relief for subsidiary companies in Europe. The issue was awaiting a decision of the European Court. The Revenue said that the claims now being made by . .
CitedLonrho Ltd v Shell Petroleum Co Ltd (No 2) HL 1-Apr-1981
No General Liability in Tort for Wrongful Acts
The plaintiff had previously constructed an oil supply pipeline from Beira to Mozambique. After Rhodesia declared unilateral independence, it became a criminal offence to supply to Rhodesia without a licence. The plaintiff ceased supply as required, . .
CitedLonrho Ltd v Shell Petroleum Co Ltd (No 2) CA 6-Mar-1981
Lonrho had supplied oil to Southern Rhodesia. It gave up this profitable business when the UK imposed sanctions on that country. It claimed that Shell had conspired unlawfully to break the sanctions, thereby prolonging the illegal regime in Southern . .
CitedMarrinan v Vibart CA 1962
The court considered an action in the form an attempt to circumvent the immunity of a witness at civil law by alleging a conspiracy.
Held: The claim was rejected. The court considered the basis of the immunity from action given to witnesses. . .
CitedCrofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Company Limited v Veitch HL 15-Dec-1941
The plaintiffs sought an interdict against the respondents, a dockers’ union, who sought to impose an embargo on their tweeds as they passed through the port of Stornoway.
Held: A trade embargo was not tortious because the predominant purpose . .
CitedCrofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co Ltd v Veitch SCS 1940
Lord Justice Clerk Aitchison said: ‘When the end of a combination is not a crime or a tort in the accepted sense, and the means are not in the accepted sense criminal or tortious – cases which give rise to no difficulty – the question always is – . .
CitedAllen v Flood HL 14-Dec-1898
Tort of Malicicious Inducement not Committed
Mr Flood had in the course of his duties as a trade union official told the employers of some ironworkers that the ironworkers would go on strike, unless the employers ceased employing some woodworkers, who the ironworkers believed had worked on . .
CitedSorrell v Smith HL 1925
Torts of Conspiracy by Unlawful Means
The plaintiff had struck the first blow in a commercial battle between the parties, and the defendant then defended himself, whereupon the plaintiff sued him.
Lord Cave quoted the French saying: ‘cet animal est tres mechant; quand on . .
CitedHargreaves v Bretherton 1959
The Plaintiff pleaded that the First Defendant police officer had falsely and maliciously and without justification or excuse committed perjury at the Plaintiff’s trial on charges of criminal offences and that as a result the Plaintiff had been . .
CitedQuinn v Leathem HL 5-Aug-1901
Unlawful Means Conspiracy has two forms
Quinn was treasurer of a Belfast butchers’ association. Leathem, who traded as a butcher, employed some non-union men, although when the union made difficulties he asked for them to be admitted to the union, and offered to pay their dues. The union . .
CitedDouglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others; similar HL 2-May-2007
In Douglas, the claimants said that the defendants had interfered with their contract to provide exclusive photographs of their wedding to a competing magazine, by arranging for a third party to infiltrate and take and sell unauthorised photographs. . .
CitedSnook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd CA 1967
Sham requires common intent to create other result
The court considered a claim by a hire-purchase company for the return of a vehicle. The bailee said the agreement was a sham.
Held: The word ‘sham’ should only be used to describe an act or document where the parties have a common intention . .
CitedOptigen Ltd, Fulcrum Electronics Ltd, Bond House Systems Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 12-Jan-2006
ECJ Sixth VAT Directive – Article 2(1), Article 4(1) and (2) and Article 5(1) – Deduction of input tax – Economic activity – Taxable person acting as such – Supply of goods – Transaction forming part of a chain . .
CitedMogul Steamship Company Limited v McGregor Gow and Co QBD 10-Aug-1885
Ship owners formed themselves into an association to protect their trading interests which then caused damage to rival ship owners. The plaintiffs complained about being kept out of the conference of shipowners trading between China and London.
CitedYukong Lines Ltd v Rendsburg Investments Corporation and Others (No 2) QBD 23-Sep-1997
Repudiation by charterer: Funds were transferred by a charterer’s ‘alter ego’ to another company controlled by him with intent to defeat owner’s claim – whether ‘alter ego’ acting as undisclosed principal of charterer – whether permissible to pierce . .
CitedMbasogo, President of the State of Equatorial Guinea and Another v Logo Ltd and others CA 23-Oct-2006
Foreign Public Law Not Enforceable Here
The claimant alleged a conspiracy by the defendants for his overthrow by means of a private coup d’etat. The defendants denied that the court had jurisdiction. The claimants appealed dismissal of their claim to damages.
Held: The claims were . .
CitedRegina v Clarence CCCR 20-Nov-1888
The defendant knew that he had gonorrhea. He had intercourse with his wife, and infected her. She would not have consented had she known. He appealed his convictions for assault and causing grievous bodily harm.
Held: ‘The question in this . .
CitedCutler v Wandsworth Stadium Ltd HL 1949
The Act required the occupier of a licensed racetrack to take all steps necessary to secure that, so long as a totalisator was being lawfully operated on the track, there was available for bookmakers space on the track where they could conveniently . .
CitedRookes v Barnard (No 1) HL 21-Jan-1964
The court set down the conditions for the award of exemplary damages. There are two categories. The first is where there has been oppressive or arbitrary conduct by a defendant. Cases in the second category are those in which the defendant’s conduct . .
CitedDaily Mirror Newspapers Ltd v Gardner CA 1968
The Federation of Retail Newsagents decided to boycott the Daily Mirror for a week to persuade its publishers to pay higher margins, and advised them accordingly. The publishers sought an injunction saying the Federation was procuring a breach of . .
DoubtedMichaels and Michaels v Taylor Woodrow Developments Ltd, etc ChD 19-Apr-2000
The respondents sought to strike out the claim for conspiracy and failure to comply with the Act. The respondent was landlord of premises occupied by the claimants. They had served a notice under the Act of their intention to sell.
Held: The . .
CitedSurzur Overseas Ltd v Koros and others CA 25-Feb-1999
A defendant to a worldwide Mareva injunction had failed to give full disclosure of all his assets in an affidavit filed with the court. False evidence as to sale of the assets in question was later manufactured and placed before the court. The . .
CitedInland Revenue Commissioners v Goldblatt 1972
In a winding up case, the Commissioners can if necessary proceed against a receiver for misfeasance. . .
CitedEx parte Island Records CA 1978
An injunction is available to any person who can show that a private right or interest has been interfered with by a criminal act. . .
CitedRCA Corporation v Pollard CA 1982
The illegal activities of bootleggers who had made unauthorised recordings of concerts, diminished the profitability of contracts granting to the plaintiffs the exclusive right to exploit recordings by Elvis Presley.
Held: The defendant’s . .
CitedW T Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 12-Mar-1981
The taxpayers used schemes to create allowable losses, and now appealed assessment to tax. The schemes involved a series of transactions none of which were a sham, but which had the effect of cancelling each other out.
Held: If the true nature . .
CitedOren, Tiny Love Limited v Red Box Toy Factory Limited, Red Box Toy (UK) Limited, Index Limited, Martin Yaffe International Limited, Argos Distributors Limited PatC 1-Feb-1999
One plaintiff was the exclusive licensee of a registered design. The defendant sold articles alleged to infringe the design right. The registered owner had a statutory right to sue for infringement. But the question was whether the licensee could . .
CitedRegina v Mavji CACD 1987
The court considered the offence of cheating the public revenue.
Held: Cheating might include any form of fraudulent conduct which resulted in diverting money from the revenue and depriving the revenue of money to which it was entitled. . .
CitedMetall und Rohstoff AG v Donaldson Lufkin and Jenrette Inc CA 1990
There was a complicated commercial dispute involving allegations of conspiracy. A claim by the plaintiffs for inducing or procuring a breach of contract would have been statute-barred in New York.
Held: Slade LJ said: ‘The judge’s approach to . .
CitedRex v Bainbridge 1782
. .
CitedRegina v Hudson 1956
To avoid the payment of tax by positive false representations constitutes a fraud on the Crown and a fraud on the public. It is a common law offence and is indictable as such. . .
CitedWoolwich Equitable Building Society v Inland Revenue Commissioners (2) HL 20-Jul-1992
The society had set out to assert that regulations were unlawful in creating a double taxation. It paid money on account of the tax demanded. It won and recovered the sums paid, but the revenue refused to pay any interest accrued on the sums paid. . .
CitedDeutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc v Inland Revenue and Another HL 25-Oct-2006
The tax payer had overpaid Advance Corporation Tax under an error of law. It sought repayment. The revenue contended that the claim was time barred.
Held: The claim was in restitution, and the limitation period began to run from the date when . .
CitedCommissioners of Customs and Excise, Attorney General v Federation of Technological Industries and Others ECJ 11-May-2006
ECJ (Taxation) C-197/03 Sixth VAT Directive – Articles 21(3) and 22(8) – National measures to combat fraud – Joint and several liability for the payment of VAT – Provision of security for VAT payable by another . .
CitedHenderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd HL 25-Jul-1994
Lloyds Agents Owe Care Duty to Member; no Contract
Managing agents conducted the financial affairs of the Lloyds Names belonging to the syndicates under their charge. It was alleged that they managed these affairs with a lack of due careleading to enormous losses.
Held: The assumption of . .
CitedMarcic v Thames Water Utilities Limited HL 4-Dec-2003
The claimant’s house was regularly flooded by waters including also foul sewage from the respondent’s neighbouring premises. He sought damages and an injunction. The defendants sought to restrict the claimant to his statutory rights.
Held: The . .
CitedJohnson v Unisys Ltd HL 23-Mar-2001
The claimant contended for a common law remedy covering the same ground as the statutory right available to him under the Employment Rights Act 1996 through the Employment Tribunal system.
Held: The statutory system for compensation for unfair . .
CitedShiloh Spinners Ltd v Harding HL 13-Dec-1972
A right of re-entry had been reserved in the lease on the assignment (and not on the initial grant) of a term of years in order to reinforce covenants (to support, fence and repair) which were taken for the benefit of other retained land of the . .
CitedMacNiven (Inspector of Taxes) v Westmoreland Investments Ltd HL 15-Feb-2001
The fact that a payment of interest was made only to create a tax advantage did not prevent its being properly claimed. Interest was paid for the purposes of setting it against tax, when the debt was discharged. A company with substantial losses had . .

Cited by:
CitedChild Poverty Action Group, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary Of State for Work and Pensions CA 14-Oct-2009
CPAG appealed against a refusal of a declaration that the respondent could use only the 1992 Act to recover overpayment of benefits where there had been neither misrepresentation nor non-disclosure.
Held: The appeal succeeded, and the court . .
CitedDigicel (St Lucia) Ltd and Others v Cable and Wireless Plc and Others ChD 15-Apr-2010
The claimants alleged breaches of legislation by members of the group of companies named as defendants giving rise to claims in conspiracy to injure by unlawful means. In effect they had been denied the opportunity to make interconnections with . .
CitedMobilx Ltd and Others v HM Revenue and Customs; Blue Sphere Global Ltd v Same and similar CA 12-May-2010
Each company sought repayment of input VAT. HMRC refused, saying that the transactions were the end-product of a fraud on it, and that even if the taxpayer did not know that a fraud was involved, it should have been aware that one was and acted . .
CitedThe Child Poverty Action Group v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 8-Dec-2010
The Action Group had obtained a declaration that, where an overpayment of benefits had arisen due to a miscalculation by the officers of the Department, any process of recovering the overpayment must be by the Act, and that the Department could not . .
AppliedThe Racing Partnership Ltd and Others v Done Brothers (Cash Betting) Ltd and Others ChD 8-May-2019
Actions concerning the alleged infringement of the claimants’ rights in respect of data relating to horseracing. The claimant had provided horse race betting odds (Betting shows) to race course owners. A rival company had provided similar data to . .
CitedThe Racing Partnership Ltd and Others v Sports Information Services Ltd CA 9-Oct-2020
The court looked at the limitations: (1) the legal protection of sports data and other information which is not subject to traditional intellectual property rights; (2) the scope of an action under the equitable doctrine of breach of confidence or . .
CitedJSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov SC 21-Mar-2018
A had been chairman of the claimant bank. After removal, A fled to the UK, obtaining asylum. The bank then claimed embezzlement, and was sentenced for contempt after failing to disclose assets when ordered, but fled the UK. The Appellant, K, was A’s . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Torts – Other, Customs and Excise, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.266167

Sir Francis Burdett, Bart v The Right Hon Charles Abbot: KBD 1811

Speaker’s Powers to Arrest House Members

To an action of trespass against the Speaker of the House of Commons for forcibly, and, with the assistance of armed soldiers, breaking into the messuage of the plaintiff (the outer door being shut and fastened,) and arresting him there, and taking him to the Tower of London, and imprisoning him there; it is a legal justification and bar to plead that a Parliament was held, which was sitting during the period of the trespasses complained of; that the plaintiff was a member of the House of Commons; and that the House having resolved ‘that a certain letter, and e. in Cobbett’s Weekly Register, was a libellous and scandalous paper, reflecting on the just rights and privileges of the House, and that the plaintiff, who had admitted that the said letter, and co. was printed by his authority, had been thereby guilty of a breach of the privileges of that House ;’ and having ordered that for his said offence he should be committed to the Tower, and that the Speaker should issue his warrant accordingly ; the defendant, as Speaker, in execution of the said order, issued his warrant to the serjeant at arms, to whom the execution of such warrant belonged, to arrest the plaintiff and commit him to the custody of the lieutenant of the Tower; and issued another warrant to the lieutenant of the Tower to receive and detain the plaintiff in custody during the pleasure of the House ; by virtue of which first warrant the serjeant at arms went to the messuage of the plaintiff, where he then was, to execute it ; and because the outer door was fastened, and he could not enter, after audible notification of his purpose, and demand made of admission, he, by the assistance of the said soldiers, broke and entered the plaintiff’s messuage, and arrested and conveyed him to the Tower, where he was received and detained in custody under the other warrant, by the lieutenant of the Tower.

(1811) 14 East 1, [1811] EngR 83, (1811) 104 ER 501
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedJennings v Buchanan PC 14-Jul-2004
(New Zealand) (Attorney General of New Zealand intervening) The defendant MP had made a statement in Parliament which attracted parliamentary privilege. In a subsequent newspaper interview, he said ‘he did not resile from his claim’. He defended the . .
Appeal fromBurdett, Bart v The Right Honourable Charles Abbot CA 22-Apr-1812
. .
At Kings BenchBurdett (Bart) v Abbot (Speaker, House of Commons); And Burdett (Bart) Colman (Sergeant At Arms) PC 2-Jul-1817
To an action of trespass against the Speaker of the House of Commons forcibly and with the assistance of armed soldiers, breaking into the messuage of the Plainttiff (the outer door being shut and fastened), and arresting him there, and taking him . .
CitedPrebble v Television New Zealand Ltd PC 27-Jun-1994
(New Zealand) The plaintiff, an MP, pursued a defamation case. The defendant wished to argue for the truth of what was said, and sought to base his argument on things said in Parliament. The plaintiff responded that this would be a breach of . .
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 . .
CitedChaytor and Others, Regina v CACD 30-Jul-2010
The defendants had been members of the Houses of Commons and of Lords. They faced charges of dishonesty in respect of their expenses claims. They now appealed a finding that they were not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament under . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Torts – Other

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.199235

In re Racal Communications Ltd; In Re a Company: HL 3 Jul 1980

Court of Appeal’s powers limited to those Given

The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal is wholly statutory; it is appellate only. The court has no original jurisdiction. It has no jurisdiction itself to entertain any original application for judicial review; it has appellate jurisdiction over judgments and orders of the High Court made by that court on applications for judicial review: ‘There is in my view, however, also an obvious distinction between jurisdiction conferred by a statute on a court of law of limited jurisdiction to decide a defined question finally and conclusively or unappealable, and a similar jurisdiction conferred on the High Court or a judge of the High Court acting in his judicial capacity. The High Court is not a court of limited jurisdiction and its constitutional role includes the interpretation of written laws. There is thus no room for the inference that Parliament did not intend the High Court or the judge of the High Court acting in his judicial capacity to be entitled and, indeed, required to construe the words of the statute by which the question submitted to his decision was defined. There is simply no room for error going to his jurisdiction, nor, as is conceded by counsel for the respondent, is there any room for judicial review. Judicial review is available as a remedy for mistakes of law made by inferior courts and tribunals only. Mistakes of law made by judges of the High Court acting in their capacity as such can be corrected only by means of appeal to an appellate court; and if, as in the instant case, the statute provides that the judge’s decision shall not be appealable, they cannot be corrected at all.’
Lord Diplock said: ‘The break-through made by Anisminic . . was that, as respects administrative tribunals and authorities, the old distinction between errors of law that went to jurisdiction and errors of law that did not, was for practical purposes abolished. Any error of law that could be shown to have been made by them in the course of reaching their decision on matters of fact or of administrative policy would result in their having asked themselves the wrong question with the result that the decision they reached would be a nullity.’ But there was: ‘no similar presumption that where a decision-making power is conferred by statute upon a court of law, Parliament did not intend to confer upon it power to decide questions of law as well as questions of fact. Whether it did or not and, in the case of inferior courts, what limits are imposed on the kinds of questions of law they are empowered to decide, depends upon the construction of the statute unencumbered by any such presumption. In the case of inferior courts where the decision of the court is made final and conclusive by the statute, this may involve the survival of those subtle distinctions formerly drawn between errors of law which go to jurisdiction and errors of law which do not that did so much to confuse English administrative law before Anisminic . . ; but upon any application for judicial review of a decision of an inferior court in a matter which involves, as so many do, interrelated questions of law, fact and degree the superior court conducting the review should not be astute to hold that Parliament did not intend the inferior court to have jurisdiction to decide for itself the meaning of ordinary words used in the statute to define the question which it has to decide.’

Lord Diplock, Lord Salmon, Lord Edmund-Davies, Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Scarman
[1981] AC 374, [1980] UKHL 5, [1980] 2 All ER 634, [1980] 3 WLR 181
Bailii
Supreme Court Act 1981 15, Companies Act 1948 441
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Medical Appeal Tribunal ex parte Gilmore; Re Gilmore’s Application CA 25-Feb-1957
The claimant had received two injuries resulting in his total blindness. He sought an order of certiorari against the respondent who had found only a 20% disability. The tribunal responded that its decision, under the Act was final.
Held: In . .
Majority OverruledPearlman v Keepers and Governors of Harrow School CA 14-Jul-1978
The court considered the finality of decision of a county court judge regarding the interpretation of the phrase ‘structural alteration’ in the 1974 Act. Paragraph 2 (2) of Schedule 8 provided that the determination of the county court judge ‘shall . .
CitedDeighton v Cockle CA 2-Dec-1911
Where, an order haying been obtained for judgment under Order xiv., judgment is not signed until more than twelve months afterwards, the case does not come within Order lxiv., r. 13, and therefore it is not necessary that the notice of intention to . .
CitedAnisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission HL 17-Dec-1968
There are no degrees of nullity
The plaintiffs had owned mining property in Egypt. Their interests were damaged and or sequestrated and they sought compensation from the Respondent Commission. The plaintiffs brought an action for the declaration rejecting their claims was a . .

Cited by:
CitedKemper Reinsurance Company v The Minister of Finance and others PC 5-May-1998
(Bermuda) An appeal Court did have jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the discharge of leave to apply for certiorari order, since this was outside scope of the rule in Lane v Esdaille.
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘Nevertheless, the limited nature . .
CitedG v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Interim Decision) CA 9-Mar-2004
A certificate had been granted by the Home Secretary that the applicant was suspected of terrorism, and he had accordingly been detained under special procedures. When his case had come before the Special Immigration Appeal Tribunal, they had . .
AppliedWestminster City Council v O’Reilly and others CA 1-Jul-2003
The defendant sought to appeal against a decision of the High Court on a case stated by the Magistrates.
Held: A decision by the High Court on an appeal by way of case stated from the Magistrates was final, and no further appeal lay to the . .
CitedRegina (G) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal; Regina (M) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal Admn 25-Mar-2004
The applicants sought judicial review of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s refusal of leave to appeal. The court had to decide whether such a right survived section 101 of the 2001 Act.
Held: The right to have a judicial review could only be . .
CitedSinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v The Lands Tribunal CA 8-Nov-2005
The claimant appealed against a refusal of judicial review of a decision of the Lands Tribunal.
Held: A decision of the Lands Tribunal could only be judicially reviewed in exceptional cases where there was either a jurisdictional error or a . .
CitedRegina v Manchester Crown Court ex parte Williams and Simpson 1990
If an application to prefer a Voluntary Bill is successful there is no right of appeal, and nor can the decision be made subject to judicial review. . .
CitedLumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
CitedEvans and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Attorney General SC 26-Mar-2015
The Attorney General appealed against a decision for the release under the Act and Regulations of letters from HRH The Prince of Wales to various ministers and government departments.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority). The A-G had not been . .
CitedRegina v Hull University Visitor, Ex parte Page; Regina v Lord President of the Privy Council ex Parte Page HL 3-Dec-1992
The decisions of University Visitors are subject to judicial review in that they exercise a public function. English law no longer draws a distinction between jurisdictional errors of law and non-jurisdictional errors of law.
However, the . .
CitedLee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and Others SC 10-Oct-2018
The court considered whether a power of appeal to the existed.
Held: A power did exist under FETO, and the CANI having mistakenly excluded a power to appeal the Supreme Court could nevertheless hear it. Both appeals were allowed. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Company, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.182917

Stockdale v Hansard: 1839

Bailii It is no defence in law to an action for publishing a libel, that defamatory matter is part of a order of the House of Commons, laid before the House, and thereupon became part of the proceedings of the House and which was afterwards, by orders of the House, printed and published by defendant; and that the House of Commons heretofore resolved, declared, and adjudged ‘that the power of publishing such of its reports, votes, and proceedings as it shall deem necessary or conducive to the public interests is an essential incident to the constitutional functions of parliament, more especially to the Commons’ House of Parliament as the representative portion of it.’
On demurrer to a plea suggesting such a defence, a court of law is competent to determine whether or not the House of Commons has such privilege as will support the plea.
Lord Denman CJ said: ‘Our respect and gratitude to the Convention Parliament ought not to blind us to the fact that this sentence of imprisonment was as unjust and tyrannical as any of those of arbitrary power for which they deprived King James of his Crown.’ and ‘Where the subject matter falls within their jurisdiction, no doubt we cannot question their judgment; but we are now enquiring whether the subject matter does fall within the jurisdiction of the House of Commons. It is contended that they can bring it within their jurisdiction by declaring it so. To this claim, as arising from their privileges, I have already stated my answer: it is perfectly clear that none of these Courts could give themselves jurisdiction by adjudging that they enjoy it.’

Lord Denman CJ
(1839) 9 Ad and El 1, [1839] EWHC QB J21, 112 ER 1112, (1839) 9 Ad and Ell 96
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
appeal fromStockdale v Hansard And Others 7-Feb-1837
The order of the House of Commons for the publication and sale by certain booksellers of Reports laid before the House, does not exempt the booksellers from answering in an action of libel any individual injured by defamatory matters in such Reports . .
appeal fromStockdale v Hansard And Others 7-Feb-1837
The House of Commons, in the years 1836 and 1836, made resolutions that parliamentary papers and reports, printed for the use of the house, should be publicly sold by their printer ; and afterwards a report from the Inspectors of Prisons was ordered . .
CitedEntick v Carrington KBD 1765
The Property of Every Man is Sacred
The King’s Messengers entered the plaintiff’s house and seized his papers under a warrant issued by the Secretary of State, a government minister.
Held: The common law does not recognise interests of state as a justification for allowing what . .

Cited by:
CitedJennings v Buchanan PC 14-Jul-2004
(New Zealand) (Attorney General of New Zealand intervening) The defendant MP had made a statement in Parliament which attracted parliamentary privilege. In a subsequent newspaper interview, he said ‘he did not resile from his claim’. He defended the . .
CitedPrebble v Television New Zealand Ltd PC 27-Jun-1994
(New Zealand) The plaintiff, an MP, pursued a defamation case. The defendant wished to argue for the truth of what was said, and sought to base his argument on things said in Parliament. The plaintiff responded that this would be a breach of . .
CitedChaytor and Others, Regina v CACD 30-Jul-2010
The defendants had been members of the Houses of Commons and of Lords. They faced charges of dishonesty in respect of their expenses claims. They now appealed a finding that they were not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament under . .
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Defamation

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.199236

Regina v Morley; Regina v Chaytor; Regina v Devine; Regina v Lord Hanningfield: CC 11 Jun 2010

(Southwark Crown Court) The defendants faced charges of false accounting in connection with expense claims as members of parliament, three of the House of Commons and one of the Lords. Each claimed that the matter was covered by Parliamentary Privilege and that a civil court had no jurisdiction to try them.
Held: The claims to privilege failed. Saunders J said: ‘Although Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 is the best-known example of parliamentary privilege and has enshrined in Statute the privilege of freedom of speech in Parliament, it is part only of a much broader privilege which is found in the common law. Article 9 provides that ‘the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament’.’
However: ‘in the context of criminal charges Parliamentary privilege should be narrowly construed. The principle that all men are equal before the law is an important one and should be observed unless there is good reason why it should not apply. To do otherwise would risk bringing both the Courts and Parliament into disrepute and diminish confidence in the criminal justice system. Parliament does not have an effective procedure for investigating and deciding whether a member is guilty or not guilty of criminal charge’
It was significant that ‘neither House has sought to assert that these proceedings come within the jurisdiction of Parliament. This is of particular significance as the privilege, if it exists, belongs to Parliament and not the individual members.’ and ‘Wherever a line is drawn there may be anomalies. The fact that it is the submission of the claim form that sets the machinery of Parliament in motion does not make it part of that machinery just as putting a coin in a slot machine does not make the coin part of the mechanism of the slot machine just because it initiates the process.’
He continued: ‘The claiming of expenses is an individual activity for the benefit of the individual and any benefit to Parliament as a whole is not a direct one. Further it is not part of a Member’s duty to claim his expenses or allowances. He could not be criticised for failing to carry out his duties as an MP if he did not claim his allowances and his expenses. It would not be an interference with the workings of Parliament or obstruct the carrying out of their business. None of the justifications for the existence of privilege would seem to apply to the submission of the form. In my judgment it does not come within the scope of the ‘exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament’ on any sensible construction of that privilege.’

Saunders J
[2010] EW Misc 9 (EWCC)
Bailii, Judiciary
Bill of Rights 1689 9
England and Wales
Citing:
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 . .
CitedPrebble v Television New Zealand Ltd PC 27-Jun-1994
(New Zealand) The plaintiff, an MP, pursued a defamation case. The defendant wished to argue for the truth of what was said, and sought to base his argument on things said in Parliament. The plaintiff responded that this would be a breach of . .
CitedOffice of Government Commerce v Information Commissioner and Another Admn 11-Apr-2008
The Office appealed against decisions ordering it to release information about the gateway reviews for the proposed identity card system, claiming a qualified exemption from disclosure under the 2000 Act.
Held: The decision was set aside for . .
CitedMcGuinness, Re Application for Judicial Review QBNI 3-Oct-1997
The claimant was an MP from Northern Ireland. As an MP he had been required to swear allegiance to the Crown, but he had refused to do so for his belief in an independent Ireland. He challenged the decision of the Speaker of the House to refuse him . .
CitedPepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart HL 26-Nov-1992
Reference to Parliamentary Papers behind Statute
The inspector sought to tax the benefits in kind received by teachers at a private school in having their children educated at the school for free. Having agreed this was a taxable emolument, it was argued as to whether the taxable benefit was the . .
CitedAttorney-General of Ceylon v de Livera PC 1963
A member of the House of Representatives was offered 5,000 rupees for writing to the Minister of Lands and Development withdrawing an application previously made to the Minister to acquire an estate. The offeror was found guilty of offering a . .
CitedJennings v Buchanan PC 14-Jul-2004
(New Zealand) (Attorney General of New Zealand intervening) The defendant MP had made a statement in Parliament which attracted parliamentary privilege. In a subsequent newspaper interview, he said ‘he did not resile from his claim’. He defended the . .
CitedRegina v Greenaway CC 25-Jun-1992
(Central Criminal Court) The defendant Member of Parliament had faced charges of accepting bribes in return for advancing the interests of a commercial company.
Held: The charges were dismissed on the request of the prosecution after a . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromChaytor and Others, Regina v CACD 30-Jul-2010
The defendants had been members of the Houses of Commons and of Lords. They faced charges of dishonesty in respect of their expenses claims. They now appealed a finding that they were not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament under . .
At Crown CourtChaytor 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 . .
CitedKimathi and Others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office QBD 20-Dec-2017
Parliamentary privilege The claimants sought to have admitted as evidence extracts from Hansard in support of their claim for damages arising from historic claims.
Held: The court set out the authorities and made orders as to each element. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Crime

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.417821

Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH v Hauptzollamt Osnabruck: ECJ 7 Dec 2011

Constitutions Compatibility with EU law

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 267 TFEU – Interlocutory procedure for review of constitutionality – Examination of whether a national law complies with both EU law and with the Constitution of the Member State concerned – Discretion enjoyed by a national court to refer questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling – National legislation levying a duty on the use of nuclear fuel – Directives 2003/96/EC and 2008/118/EC – Article 107 TFEU – Articles 93 EA, 191 EA and 192 EA

M Ilesic P
[2016] Ch 181, [2016] 2 WLR 369, [2015] WLR(D) 240, [2015] 3 CMLR 41, ECLI:EU:C:2015:354, [2015] EUECJ C-5/14
Bailii, WLRD
TFEU 267
European

Constitutional

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.547699

Morgan v Simpson: CA 1974

Voting papers that were invalid as a result of minor administrative errors by officials (and not the voters). Counting the invalid votes would have affected the election outcome.
Held: The election was declared void. Section 37(1) was not available to cure the defects, but rather it was to be used to ask whether the defects had affected the outcome.
Lord Denning MR commented on parliamentary elections conducted more than a century earlier by poll whereby a voter’s name, qualification and vote were recorded in a book open for public inspection, saying: ‘Such was the method of election at common law. It was open. Not by secret ballot. Being open, it was disgraced by abuses of every kind, especially at parliamentary elections. Bribery, corruption, treating, personation, were rampant.’ and ‘An election petition is a serious – and expensive – matter and is not lightly to be set aside.’
Stephenson LJ said: ‘For an election to be conducted substantially in accordance with that law there must be a real election by ballot and no such substantial departure from the procedure laid down by Parliament as to make the ordinary man condemn the election as a sham or a travesty of an election by ballot.’

Lord Denning MR, Stephenson LJ
[1975] 1 QB 151, [1974] 3 All ER 722, [1974] 3 WLR 517
Representation of the People Act 1949 37(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedEdgell v Glover, Garnett (Returning Officer) QBD 4-Nov-2003
The constituency had adopted an all postal ballot, resulting in a counted majority of one. One ballot paper’s confirmation of identity had not been signed.
Held: The function of the court, exercising its jurisdiction under section 48(1), is . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.187488

Rex (at the prosecution of Arthur Zadig) v Halliday: HL 1 May 1917

The applicant was German born but a naturalised Englishman who complained of having been interned by a regulation made under the 1914 Act. He said that the regulation was ultra vires.
Held: The appeal failed (Lord Shaw dissenting). The House upheld the regulation as being within the scope of the power given to the minister by the statute on the ground that the regulation was intra vires the Act there being no deeming provision.
Any order would require recommendation by the appropriate defence authority, and would be subject to representations made by a person affected.
Lord Shaw of Dunfermline said: ‘Whether the government has exceeded its statutory mandate is a question of ultra or intra vires such as that which is now being tried. In so far as the mandate has been exceeded, there lurk the elements of a transition to arbitrary government and therein of grave constitutional and public danger. The increasing crush of legislative effects and the convenience to the Executive of a refuge to the device of Orders in Council would increase that danger twofold were the judiciary to approach any such action by the government in a spirit of compliance rather than of independent scrutiny.’

Lord Finlay LC, Lord Shaw of Dunfermline
[1917] UKHL 1, [1917] AC 260
Bailii
Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act 1914, Defence of the Realm (Consolidation) Regulations 14B
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedA, K, M, Q and G v HM Treasury Admn 24-Apr-2008
The applicants were suspected of terrorist associations. Their bank accounts and similar had been frozen. They challenged the Order in Council under which the orders had been made without an opportunity for parliamentary challenge or approval.
ApprovedChester v Bateson 1920
A Regulation brought in under the 1914 Act prohibited the bringing of possession proceedings against a munitions worker without the consent of the Minister.
Held: The prohibition was unlawful. It was a grave invasion of the rights of the . .
CitedHM Treasury v Ahmed and Others SC 27-Jan-2010
The claimants objected to orders made freezing their assets under the 2006 Order, after being included in the Consolidated List of suspected members of terrorist organisations.
Held: The orders could not stand. Such orders were made by the . .
CitedMcEldowney v Forde HL 18-Jun-1969
The House was asked whether the Magistrates had properly dismissed a charge of membership of an unlawful organisation, namely a Republican club. The Magistrates had found that an unlawful club would only be such if it supported the absorption of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.265983

Attorney-General of Ceylon v de Livera: PC 1963

A member of the House of Representatives was offered 5,000 rupees for writing to the Minister of Lands and Development withdrawing an application previously made to the Minister to acquire an estate. The offeror was found guilty of offering a gratification to the member ‘for his doing an act in his capacity as such member’, but the conviction by the magistrate was overturned by the Supreme Court of Ceylon.
Held: The attorney-general’s appeal was allowed. The Board considered the meaning of the phrase ‘proceedings in parliament’.
Viscount Radcliffe said: ‘their Lordships are now in a position to address themselves to the facts of this appeal. They approach them on the basis . . that in considering whether the inducement offered by the . . respondent to . . the member was offered to induce him to act in his capacity as such member, the inquiry is not confined to ascertaining whether he was to do something specifically assigned as a member’s function in the Constitution Order or something which was actually a proceeding on the floor of or in the precincts of the House. They recognise that there are many things which a member may be invited to do because he is a member and enjoys as such a status and prestige which supply the motive of the invitation but in doing which he would not be acting in his capacity as a member. But, with this recognition made, they are of the opinion that the circumstances of any particular case may show that in the light of prevailing practices or conventions observed by members of the House some act for which an inducement has been offered is sufficiently closely bound up with and analogous to a proceeding in the House as to be properly described as done by a member in his capacity as such’. And
‘What has come under inquiry on several occasions is the extent of the privilege of a member of the House and the complementary question, what is a ‘proceeding in Parliament’? This is not the same question as that now before the Board, and there is no doubt that the proper meaning of the words ‘proceedings in Parliament’ is influenced by the context in which they appear in article 9 of the Bill of Rights (1 Wm and M, Sess,. 2, c.2); but the answer given to that somewhat more limited question depends upon a very similar consideration, in what circumstances and in what situations is a member of the House exercising his ‘real’ or ‘essential’ function as a member? For, given the proper anxiety of the House to confine its own or its members’ privileges to the minimum infringement of the liberties of others, it is important to see that those privileges do not cover activities that are not squarely within a member’s true function.’

Viscount Radcliffe
[1963] AC 103
Bill of Rights 1869
Commonwealth
Cited by:
CitedJennings v Buchanan PC 14-Jul-2004
(New Zealand) (Attorney General of New Zealand intervening) The defendant MP had made a statement in Parliament which attracted parliamentary privilege. In a subsequent newspaper interview, he said ‘he did not resile from his claim’. He defended the . .
CitedJennings v Buchanan PC 14-Jul-2004
(New Zealand) (Attorney General of New Zealand intervening) The defendant MP had made a statement in Parliament which attracted parliamentary privilege. In a subsequent newspaper interview, he said ‘he did not resile from his claim’. He defended the . .
CitedRegina v Morley; Regina v Chaytor; Regina v Devine; Regina v Lord Hanningfield CC 11-Jun-2010
(Southwark Crown Court) The defendants faced charges of false accounting in connection with expense claims as members of parliament, three of the House of Commons and one of the Lords. Each claimed that the matter was covered by Parliamentary . .
CitedChaytor and Others, Regina v CACD 30-Jul-2010
The defendants had been members of the Houses of Commons and of Lords. They faced charges of dishonesty in respect of their expenses claims. They now appealed a finding that they were not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament under . .
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.199234

Regina v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis, ex parte Rottman: HL 16 May 2002

The defendant had been arrested under an extradition warrant issued under the Act. The police had searched his premises, and found further evidence which was used to support the application for extradition. He challenged the collection and admission of the evidence which was outside the scope of the 1984 Act.
Held: The 1984 Act did not replace entirely the common law powers of the police in collecting evidence. Common law had allowed a police officer exercising an arrest warrant also to search the premises in which he was found. The 1984 Act itself did not create powers capable of being used in this way. The sections were confined to domestic offences. The common law powers remained for international offences.
Hutton L said: ‘It is a well established principle that a rule of the common law is not extinguished by a statute unless the statute makes this clear by express provision or by clear implication.’

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Times 21-May-2002, [2002] UKHL 20, [2002] 2 AC 692, [2002] ACD 69, [2002] 2 WLR 1315, [2002] 2 All ER 865, [2002] HRLR 32, 12 BHRC 329
House of Lords, Bailii
Extradition Act 1989 8, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 18 19
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedGhani v Jones CA 1970
The court was asked as to the powers of the police to retain objects taken and impounded.
Held: The privacy and possessions of an individual were not to be invaded except for the most compelling reasons.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘Balancing . .
CitedRegina v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex Parte Osman QBD 30-Mar-1988
The applicant had been committed to prison pending extradition proceedings brought by Hong Kong alleging substantial fraud. He challenged the committal on the grounds that since the allegations involved transmission of funds over international . .
Appeal fromRegina (Michael Rottman) v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis and Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 24-Jul-2001
There is no residual common law power of entry for police to enter into premises to execute a search without first obtaining a warrant, beyond that contained in the Act. The Act was intended to provide a complete statement of the powers of entry for . .
CitedEntick v Carrington KBD 1765
The Property of Every Man is Sacred
The King’s Messengers entered the plaintiff’s house and seized his papers under a warrant issued by the Secretary of State, a government minister.
Held: The common law does not recognise interests of state as a justification for allowing what . .

Cited by:
AppliedRegina (Hewitson) v Chief Constable of Dorset Police and another QBD 18-Dec-2003
The claimant had been arrested under an extradition warrant. He complained that the police took the opportunity to search his girflriend’s nearby flat. The police responded that the search was conducted under a common law power of search attached to . .
CitedDurant v Financial Services Authority CA 8-Dec-2003
The appellant had been unsuccessful in litigation against his former bank. The Financial Services Authority had subsequently investigated his complaint against the bank. Using section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998, he requested disclosure of his . .
Appealed toRegina (Michael Rottman) v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis and Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 24-Jul-2001
There is no residual common law power of entry for police to enter into premises to execute a search without first obtaining a warrant, beyond that contained in the Act. The Act was intended to provide a complete statement of the powers of entry for . .
CitedGreene v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 5-Nov-2004
The claimant appealed against refusal of an order restraining publication by the respondent of an article about her. She said that it was based upon an email falsely attributed to her.
Held: ‘in an action for defamation a court will not impose . .
CitedRegina v Jones (Margaret), Regina v Milling and others HL 29-Mar-2006
Domestic Offence requires Domestic Defence
Each defendant sought to raise by way of defence of their otherwise criminal actions, the fact that they were attempting to prevent the commission by the government of the crime of waging an aggressive war in Iraq, and that their acts were . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Extradition, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.170324

Commodore Royal Bahamas Defence Force and Others v Laramore: PC 8 May 2017

Soldier’s right not to attend religious service

(The Bahamas) Parties challenged the removal of the right of service members to be excused attendance of the religious elements of force parades.
Held: The Muslim petty officer had been hindered in the exercise of his constitutional right to freedom of conscience when he was obliged, on pain of disciplinary action, to remain present and doff his cap during Christian prayers at ceremonial parades and at morning and evening colours. This was a sufficiently active participation to hinder the claimant in the enjoyment of his conscientious beliefs. Nor had any justification been shown for it: ‘The Board has no doubt that Mr Laramore was ‘hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of conscience’ in the present case. His conscience told him that he should not be taking part in the prayers which were part of regular colours parades. He made this point after he had converted to the Muslim religion in 1993, and he pursued it after the 2006 Memorandum reversed the dispensation introduced in 1993. The effect of the 2006 Memorandum was that he was no longer able to enjoy or give effect to his freedom of conscience by falling out during prayers.’
Nor was the interference justified in the circumstances.

Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed. Lord Hughes
[2017] UKPC 13, [2017] 1 WLR 2752, [2017] WLR(D) 334
Bailii, WLRD
Commonwealth
Citing:
CitedThe Honourable Dr. Paul Borg Oliver and Another v The Honourable Dr. Anton Buttigieg PC 19-Apr-1966
The Archbishop of Malta had declared it a mortal sin to print, write, sell, buy, distribute or read a left-wing weekly newspaper, the Voice of Malta. The Maltese Medical and Health Department had followed this up by prohibiting all its 2,660 . .
CitedBanton v Alcoa Minerals of Jamaica Inc 1971
. .
CitedHope v New Guyana Ltd 1979
. .
CitedAttorney-General v Momodou Jobe PC 26-Mar-1984
(Gambia) A constitution, and in particular that part of it which protects and entrenches fundamental rights and freedoms to which all persons in the state are to be entitled, is to be given a generous and purposive construction. In the construction . .
CitedRegina v Big M Drug Mart 1985
Supreme Court of Canada – A company was charged with unlawfully carrying on the sale of goods on a Sunday contrary to the Lord’s Day Act. It challenged the legislation. The freedom affected was that of persons prevented by the Act from working on a . .
ApprovedScott v Regina 2004
Participation in religious prayers were required of soldiers during routine parades at a Canadian Forces base. The soldiers were preceded by an order to remove headdress. The soldier had no religious convictions, had (after having previously raised . .

Cited by:
CitedLee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and Others SC 10-Oct-2018
The court considered whether a power of appeal to the existed.
Held: A power did exist under FETO, and the CANI having mistakenly excluded a power to appeal the Supreme Court could nevertheless hear it. Both appeals were allowed. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Armed Forces, Constitutional, Human Rights

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.582134

British Coal Corporation v The King: PC 1935

The Board was asked as to the competency of a petition for special leave to appeal to the King in Council from a judgment of a court in Quebec in a criminal matter. The petitioners argued that notwithstanding the provisions of a Canadian statute which prohibited such appeals, this class of appeal was external to Canada, so that the Canadian legislature had no power to make provision affecting it.
Held: The Canadian legislature had power to prohibit appeals to the King in Council in criminal matters and that the petition before it was therefore incompetent.
It was to the King that any subject who had failed to get justice in the King’s Court brought his petition for redress, a petition brought to the King in Parliament or to the King in his Chancery.
Viscount Sankey LC set out the historical background of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Its origins lay in the procedure whereby a party aggrieved by a decision of the Courts of the Channel Islands (and, later, by a decision of the Courts of the Plantations and Colonies) might petition the King in Council to exercise in his favour the sovereign’s royal prerogative as the fountain of justice. In a domestic context such petitions were brought to the King in Parliament (being the origin of the judicial functions of the House of Lords which are soon to be abolished) or to the King in Chancery (from which flowed the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery).
The procedure for petitioning the King in Council had become loosely described as an appeal by the time the Judicial Committee Act 1833 was enacted. That Act created the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as a statutory body. It provided that ‘all appeals or complaints in the nature of appeals whatever’ which had previously been brought before His Majesty in Council would now be referred by His Majesty to the Judicial Committee. Although the powers of the committee were limited to making a report or recommendations to His Majesty in Council, Viscount Sankey said that according to constitutional convention it was unknown and unthinkable that His Majesty in Council should not give effect to the report of the Judicial Committee ‘who are thus in truth an appellate court of law’.
Viscount Sankey LC said: ‘Parliament could, as a matter of abstract law, repeal or disregard section 4 of the Statute. But that is theory and has no relation to realities.’ and ‘It is doubtless true that the power of the Imperial Parliament to pass on its own initiative any legislation that it thought fit extending to Canada remains in theory unimpaired: indeed, the Imperial Parliament could, as a matter of abstract law, repeal or disregard s. 4 of the Statute.’

Viscount Sankey LC
[1935] AC 500, [1935] All ER Rep 139, [1935] UKPC 33
Bailii
Statute of Westminster 1931 4
Canada
Cited by:
CitedThe Attorney General for St Christopher and Nevis v Rodionov PC 20-Jul-2004
(St. Christopher and Nevis) The government of Canada requested the extradition of the respondent. The Attorney General sought special leave to appeal against the order for his discharge from custody, which had been on the grounds of the prejudice . .
CitedManuel and Others v Attorney-General; Noltcho and Others v Attorney-General ChD 7-May-1982
The plaintiffs were Indian Chiefs from Canada. They complained that the 1982 Act which granted independence to Canada, had been passed without their consent, which they said was required. They feared the loss of rights embedded by historical . .
CitedManuel and Others v HM Attorney General CA 30-Jul-1982
The plaintiffs as representatives of the Indian Tribes of Canada sought declarations that the 1982 Act which provided for the independence of Canada was invalid. They appealed the strike out of their claims, saying that they had not been consulted . .
CitedDavid Grant v Director of Correctional Services and Another; The Director of Public Prosecutions PC 14-Jun-2004
(Jamaica) The defendant had pleaded guilty to drugs offences in the US, and had fled to Jamaica. He appealed against a refusal of Habeas Corpus having been arrested and held for extradition. The Board considered its jurisdiction to hear such an . .
CitedSeaga v Harper (No 2) PC 29-Jun-2009
No conditional fees without country approval
(Jamaica) Jamaican domestic law did not allow conditional fees or for the recovery of an after the event insurance premium for costs. When the case was appealed to the Board, his English solicitors represented him under a conditional fee agreement . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.199435

Tai Hing Ltd v Liu Chong Hing Bank: PC 1985

(Hong Kong) The relationship between banker and customer is principally a contractual one between debtor and creditor. As between the banker and his customer, the risk of loss through forgery of the customer’s signature falls on the banker unless negligence or other disentitling conduct of the customer precludes the customer’s claim. No wider duty should be imposed on the customer beyond a duty not to act in a way that facilitates forgery and to make the bank aware of any known forgeries occurred: ‘The business of banking is the business not of the customer but of the bank. They offer a service, which is to honour their customer’s cheques when drawn upon an account in credit or within an agreed overdraft limit. If they pay out upon cheques which are not his, they are acting outside their mandate and cannot plead his authority in justification of their debit to his account. This is a risk of the service which it is their business to offer.’
The Board considered the need for the Board to follow earlier decisions of the House of Lords: ‘It was suggested, though only faintly, that even if English courts are bound to follow the decision in Macmillan’s case the Judicial Committee is not so constrained. This is a misapprehension. Once it is accepted, as in this case it is, that the applicable law is English, their Lordships of the Judicial Committee will follow a House of Lords’ decision which covers the point in issue. The Judicial Committee is not the final judicial authority for the determination of English law. That is the responsibility of the House of Lords in its judicial capacity. Though the Judicial Committee enjoys a greater freedom from the binding effect of precedent than does the House of Lords, it is in no position on a question of English law to invoke the Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [1966] 1 WLR 1234 of July 1966 pursuant to which the House has assumed the power to depart in certain circumstances from a previous decision of the House. And their Lordships note, in passing, the Statement’s warning against the danger from a House of Lords’ decision in a case where, by reason of custom, statute, or for other reasons peculiar to the jurisdiction where the matter in dispute arose, the Judicial Committee is required to determine whether English law should or should not apply. Only if it be decided or accepted (as in this case) that English law is the law to be applied will the Judicial Committee consider itself bound to follow a House of Lords’ decision.’

Lord Scarman
[1985] 2 All ER 947, [1985] 2 Lloyds Rep 313, [1985] 3 WLR 317, [1986] AC 80, [1985] UKPC 22
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedLiverpool City Council v Irwin HL 31-Mar-1976
The House found it to be an implied term of a tenancy agreement that the lessor was to be responsible for repairing and lighting the common parts of the building of which the premises formed part. In analysing the different types of contract case in . .

Cited by:
CitedYorkshire Bank plc v Lloyds Bank plc CA 12-May-1999
A customer of the plaintiff, sent a cheque to the defendant, with an application for shares. The cheque was stolen whilst in the defendant’s custody, but the plaintiff at first debited the account, then re-credited the balance. The claim failed . .
CitedSandra Estelle Fielding v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc CA 11-Feb-2004
The husband and wife had signed a bank mandate allowing the bank to act upon the authorisation of either of them. The wife complained that the bank should not be able to recover from her any sums expended by the husband.
Held: The mandate . .
CitedJames, Regina v; Regina v Karimi CACD 25-Jan-2006
The defendants appealed their convictions for murder, saying that the court had not properly guided the jury on provocation. The court was faced with apparently conflicting decision of the House of Lords (Smith) and the Privy Council (Holley).
CitedDonington Park Leisure Ltd v Wheatcroft and Son Ltd ChD 7-Apr-2006
Leave to apply was pursued under the provisions of a Tomlin order. The parties had disputed the extent to which parts of the order should be exhibited to the court.
Held: The Tomlin order should be amended to add terms necessary to give effect . .
CitedBlackpool and Fylde Aero Club Ltd v Blackpool Borough Council CA 25-May-1990
The club had enjoyed a concession from the council to operate pleasure flights from the airport operated by the council. They were invited to bid for a new concession subject to strict tender rules. They submitted the highest bid on time, but the . .
See AlsoTai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd v Liu Chong Hing Bank Ltd PC 5-Feb-1986
(Hong Kong) The Boad considered the costs payable for counsel on an appeal to the Board from Hong Kong . .
CitedWillers v Joyce and Another (Re: Gubay (Deceased) No 2) SC 20-Jul-2016
The Court was asked whether and in what circumstances a lower court may follow a decision of the Privy Council which has reached a different conclusion from that of the House of Lords (or the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal) on an earlier occasion. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Banking

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.238119

Da Costa En Schaake Nv, Jacob Meijer Nv, Hoechst-Holland Nv v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration: ECJ 27 Mar 1963

ECJ (Preliminary Ruling ) 1. The obligation imposed by the third paragraph of article 177 of the EEC Treaty upon national courts or tribunals of last instance may be deprived of its purpose by reason of the authority of an interpretation already given by the court under article 177 in those cases in which the question raised is materially identical with a question which has already been the subject of a preliminary ruling in a similar case.
2. When giving a ruling within the framework of article 177, the court limits itself to deducing the meaning of community rules from the wording and the spirit of the treaty, it being left to the national court to apply in the particular case the rules which are thus interpreted.
3. Article 177 always allows a national court or tribunal, if it considers it appropriate, to refer questions of interpretation to the court again even if they have already formed the subject of a preliminary ruling in a similar case.

R-30/62, [1963] EUECJ R-30/62, (1963) 2 CMLR 224
Bailii
EEC Treaty 177
European
Cited by:
CitedHP Bulmer Ltd and Another v J Bollinger Sa and others CA 22-May-1974
Necessity for Reference to ECJ
Lord Denning said that the test for whether a question should be referred to the European Court of Justice is one of necessity, not desirability or convenience. There are cases where the point, if decided one way, would shorten the trial greatly. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.214017

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex parte Anderson: HL 25 Nov 2002

The appellant had been convicted of double murder. The judge imposed a mandatory life sentence with a minimum recommended term. The Home Secretary had later increased the minimum term under the 1997 Act. The appellant challenged that increase.
Held: The increase in the minimum term to be served was an increase in the sentence. A mandatory life sentence was not to be distinguished for this purpose from a discretionary life sentence. The tariff-fixing procedure is not a statutory creature, and had to be looked at in substance not in form. Such an act carried out by the executive was an unacceptable blurring of the separation of powers. An act of sentencing could only be done by a court. In addition, the arrangement was in breach of the appellant’s right to have his sentence determined by a court, and a declaration of incompatibility of the section was made. A whole life tariff need not be inconsistent with a defendant’s human rights when properly imposed.
As to the relationship of the House of the ECHR, the House of Lords ‘will not without good reason depart from the principles laid down in a carefully considered judgment of the Grand Chamber.’

Bingham of Cornhill, Nicholls of Birkenhead, Steyn, Hutton, Hobhouse of Woodborough, Scott of Foscote, Rodger of Earlsferry, LL
Times 26-Nov-2002, Gazette 23-Jan-2003, [2002] UKHL 46, [2002] 3 WLR 180, [2003] 1 AC 837, [2003] HRLR 7, (2003) 13 BHRC 450, [2003] UKHRR 112, [2003] 1 Cr App R 32, [2002] 4 All ER 1089
House of Lords, Bailii
Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 1(1), European Convention on Human Rights Art 6(1), Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 29
England and Wales
Citing:
AppliedStafford v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-May-2002
Grand Chamber – The appellant claimed damages for being held in prison beyond the term of his sentence. Having been released on licence from a life sentence for murder, he was re-sentenced for a cheque fraud. He was not released after the end of the . .
CitedBenjamin and Wilson v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-Sep-2002
The applicant challenged the system in the UK of deciding on his release from a secure mental hospital. He had been a discretionary life prisoner, but then later his detention was continued because of his mental condition. Though an independent . .
Appeal fromRegina (Anderson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Regina (Taylor) v Same CA 13-Nov-2001
The applicants had been convicted of murder. The Home Secretary had to fix sentence tariffs for their release. They contended that it was a breach of their rights for that tariff to be set by a politician. The distinction was made between offences . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina v Lichniak HL 25-Nov-2002
The appellants challenged the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment imposed on them on their convictions for murder. They said it was an infringement of their Human Rights, being arbitrary and disproportionate.
Held: The case followed on . .
Appeal toRegina (Anderson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Regina (Taylor) v Same CA 13-Nov-2001
The applicants had been convicted of murder. The Home Secretary had to fix sentence tariffs for their release. They contended that it was a breach of their rights for that tariff to be set by a politician. The distinction was made between offences . .
CitedRegina on the Application of Clift v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 13-Jun-2003
The claimant had been sentenced to 18 years imprisonment. He challenged the differing treatment for parole purposes of those sentenced to more than 15 years, as infringing his human rights, insofar as the decision was retained by the Home Secretary. . .
CitedMcFetrich, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 30-Jun-2003
The defendant had been convicted of murder in Scotland. He requested a transfer to an English prison. The trial judge recommended a tariff of eight years which was eventually set at 12 years by the respondent. That figure also exceeded the maximum . .
CitedRegina (on the application of R) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 12-Dec-2003
The decision to designate a prisoner with mental difficulties as a ‘technical lifer’ was not a sentencing exercise requiring a right for the issue to be heard before a court, and it remained a decision for the respondent. . .
CitedGhaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
CitedRegina v Sullivan; Regina v Gibbs; Regina v Elener; Regina v Elener CACD 8-Jul-2004
The appellants, each convicted of murder, challenged the minimum periods of detention ordered to be served.
Held: As to the starting point for sentencing, judges should have regard to the published practice directions, and not the letter from . .
CitedSheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .
CitedHammond, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 25-Nov-2004
The defendant had heard that the sentencing judge would set his sentence tarriff without an oral hearing, and would then give his decision in open court. He sought judicial review.
Held: Review was granted. The availability of a right of . .
CitedHooper and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 5-May-2005
Widowers claimed that, in denying them benefits which would have been payable to widows, the Secretary of State had acted incompatibly with their rights under article 14 read with article 1 of Protocol 1 and article 8 of the ECHR.
Held: The . .
MentionedSmith, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 28-Jul-2005
The applicant had, as a child been subject to detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure, the sentence being imposed before 30 November 2000. She argued that that sentence should be subject to periodic review despite the term had been fixed by the Lord . .
CitedHammond, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 1-Dec-2005
The claimants had been convicted of murder, but their tariffs had not yet been set when the 2003 Act came into effect. They said that the procedure under which their sentence tarriffs were set were not compliant with their human rights in that the . .
CitedWilkinson v Kitzinger and others FD 31-Jul-2006
The parties had gone through a ceremony of marriage in Columbia, being both women. After the relationship failed, the claimant sought a declaration that the witholding of the recognition of same-sex marriages recoginised in a foreign jurisdiction . .
CitedBegum (otherwise SB), Regina (on the Application of) v Denbigh High School HL 22-Mar-2006
The student, a Muslim wished to wear a full Islamic dress, the jilbab, but this was not consistent with the school’s uniform policy. She complained that this interfered with her right to express her religion.
Held: The school’s appeal . .
CitedBarker, Regina v CACD 24-Oct-2008
The defendant appealed against the minimum term imposed on her under the 2003 Act. She argued that the court should have made allowance for the fact that she had made exceptional progress since arriving in prison.
Held: Caines established that . .
CitedBamber, Regina v CACD 14-May-2009
The defendant had been convicted in 1986 of the murder of five members of his adoptive family. The judge had initially recommended a minimum term of 25 years. A later judge had suggested a whole life term. The convictions had been upheld in 2002. . .
CitedVinter And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 9-Jul-2013
(Grand Chamber) The three appellants had each been convicted of exceptionally serious murders, and been sentenced to mandatory life sentences, but with provision that they could not be eligible for early release, making them whole life terms. They . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.178249

Horvath v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: ECJ 16 Jul 2009

ECJ Common agricultural policy Direct support schemes Regulation (EC) No 1782/ 2003 Article 5 and Annex IV Minimum requirements for good agricultural and environmental condition Maintenance of rights of way Implementation by a Member State Transfer of powers to regional authorities of a Member State Discrimination contrary to Community law
The Court considered a Memorandum of Understanding between the UK government and the Scottish Government assigning to the devolved administration responsibility for the implementation of Community law concerning the common agricultural policy. The relevant EC Regulation empowered Member States to set minimum standards of compliance at national or regional level. Mr Horvath complained that regulations requiring the maintenance by landowners of public rights of way over agricultural land infringed the Community law principle of equality because equivalent obligations had not been imposed by the devolved administration in Scotland. The Advocate-General, in her Opinion, had advised that differences in the way that Community obligations were implemented by different devolved administrations could not be regarded as discriminatory because they ‘cannot be attributed to the conduct of the same public authority’
Held: The Grand Chamber reached the same conclusion, but on a broader basis, namely that such differences were inherent in the distribution of responsibility for implementing Community law among distinct territorial units of government within a Member State. They were therefore no more discriminatory than differences in the way that EU law was implemented by different Member States:
‘As a preliminary point, it should be pointed out that, in conferring on Member States the responsibility of defining minimum GAEC requirements, the Community legislature gives them the possibility of taking into account the regional differences which exist on their territory.
It should be recalled that, when provisions of the Treaty or of regulations confer power or impose obligations upon the States for the purposes of the implementation of Community law, the question of how the exercise of such powers and the fulfilment of such obligations may be entrusted by Member States to specific national bodies is solely a matter for the constitutional system of each State (Joined Cases 51/71 to 54/71 International Fruit Co and Others [1971] ECR 1107, para 4).
Thus, it is settled case-law that each Member State is free to allocate powers internally and to implement Community acts which are not directly applicable by means of measures adopted by regional or local authorities, provided that that allocation of powers enables the Community legal measures in question to be implemented correctly (Case C-156/91 Hansa Fleisch Ernst Mundt [1992] ECR I-5567, para 23).
The Court has, in addition, held that, where a regulation empowers a Member State to take implementing measures, the detailed rules for the exercise of that power are governed by the public law of the Member State in question (see (Case 230/78) Eridania-Zuccherifici nazionali and Societa italiana per l’industria degli zuccheri [1979] ECR 2749, para 34, and Case C-313/99 Mulligan and Others [2002] ECR I-5719, para 48).
. . It must nevertheless be examined whether, in those circumstances, the mere fact that the rules establishing GAEC laid down by the regional authorities of the same Member State differ constitutes discrimination contrary to Community law.
. . Where, as in the main proceedings, it is the devolved administrations of a Member State which have the power to define the GAEC minimum requirements within the meaning of article 5 of and Annex IV to Regulation No 1782/2003, divergences between the measures provided for by the various administrations cannot, alone, constitute discrimination. Those measures must, as is clear from para 50 of this judgment, be compatible with the obligations on the Member State in question which stem from that regulation.
In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the second question is that, where the constitutional system of a Member State provides that devolved administrations are to have legislative competence, the mere adoption by those administrations of different GAEC standards under article 5 of and Annex IV to Regulation No 1782/2003 does not constitute discrimination contrary to Community law.’

V. Skouris, P
ECLI:EU:C:2009:458, [2009] 30 EG 66, [2009] ECR I-6355, [2009] EUECJ C-428/07
Bailii
egulation (EC) No 1782/ 2003
Citing:
OpinionHorvath v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ECJ 3-Feb-2009
ECJ (Opinion) Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (United Kingdom).
‘where the constitutional system of a member state provides that devolved . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Agriculture, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.563286

Liyanage and others v The Queen: PC 2 Dec 1965

liyanagePC196502

The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy to wage war against the Queen, and to overawe by criminal force the Government of Ceylon. It was said that the description of the offence committed had been redefied after the attempted coup in order to criminalise the defendants’ acts: ‘They were clearly aimed at particular known individuals who had been named in a White Paper and were in prison awaiting their fate. The fact that the learned judges declined to convict some of the prisoners is not to the point. That the alterations in the law were not intended for the generality of the citizens or designed as any improvement of the general law, is shown by the fact that the effect of those alterations was to be limited to the participants in the January coup and that after these had been dealt with by the judges, the law should revert to its normal state.’ Hel: These alterations constituted a grave and deliberate incursion into the judicial sphere. Quite bluntly, their aim was to ensure that the judges in dealing with these particular persons on these particular charges were deprived of their normal discretion as respects appropriate sentences. They were compelled to sentence each offender on conviction to not less than ten years’ imprisonment, and compelled to order confiscation of his possessions, even though his part in the conspiracy might have been trivial.
‘If such Acts as these were valid the judicial power could he wholly absorbed by the legislature and taken out of the hands of the judges. It is appreciated that the legislature had no such general intention. It was beset by a grave situation and it took grave measures to deal with it, thinking, one must presume, that it had power to do so and was acting rightly. But that consideration is irrelevant, and gives no validity to acts which infringe the Constitution. What is done once, if it be allowed, may be done again and in a lesser crisis and less serious circumstances. And thus judicial power may be eroded. Such an erosion is contrary to the clear intention of the Constitution. In their Lordships’ view the Acts were ultra vires and invalid.’

Morris of Brth-y-Gest, MacDermott, Guest, Pearson LL
[1965] UKPC 1, [1966] 2 WLR 682, [1967] 1 AC 259, [1966] 1 All ER 650
Bailii
Ceylon Independence Act 1947
Citing:
CitedCampbell v Hall 1774
The appellant argued that, since the Crown had had no power to make laws for the colony of Ceylon which offended against fundamental principles, at independence it could not hand over to Ceylon a higher power than it possessed itself.
Held: . .
CitedDona Maria Abeyesekera Hamini and Others v Daniel Tillekeratne PC 26-Feb-1897
Ceylon – The Board considered the validity of a retrospective Order in Council. . .
CitedIbralebbe Alias Rasa Wattan Another v The Queen PC 6-Nov-1963
Ceylon – the joint effect of the Order in Council of 1946 and the Act of 1947 was intended to and did have the result of giving to the Ceylon Parliament the full legislative powers of a sovereign independent State. . .
CitedThe Bribery Commissioner v Ranasinghe PC 5-May-1964
S.29 of the Ceylon (Constitution) Order in Council 1946 gave the Ceylon Parliament power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the island. S.29(4) gave it the power to ‘amend or repeal any of the provisions of this Order’; but . .

Cited by:
CitedMisick, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Admn 1-May-2009
The former premier of the Turks and Caicos Islands sought to challenge the constitutionality of the 2009 order which was to allow suspension of parts of the Constitution and imposing a direct administration, on a final report on alleged corruption. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Crime, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.247445

Dring v Cape Distribution Ltd and Another: QBD 5 Dec 2017

Disclosure of Documents filed at Court

Constitution – Access To Courts – Open Justice – court files – court records – public scrutiny of courts – asbestos – mesothelioma – TDN13 – Technical Data Notice 13 – Cape – asbestolux – disclosure – document management systems – CPR 5.4C(2) – settlement – dispute resolution – health and safety
Principles and status of the documents in this case
The right of access to court is inherent in the rule of law.
Openness of justice fosters the scrutiny of the courts by the public, protects the integrity of the court process and assists the development of the law and legal knowledge. It thereby supports the practical effectiveness of the right of access to court.
The courts do not merely provide a public service to the ‘users’ who appear before them. Previous cases form the basis of the advice given to those whose cases are now before the courts, or who need to be advised as to the basis on which their claim might fairly be settled, or who need to be advised that their case is hopeless.
Access to a court, being not merely the provision of a service to ‘users’ entails that the parties submitting to the jurisdiction do not have full sovereignty to determine simply by private agreement between themselves the extent to which the public may be made aware of any aspect of the proceedings before the court.
There is an inherent and foreseeable possibility that material deployed in court by the parties, or filed upon the records of the court as part of its process, will form part of the corpus of material which may be deployed in other cases, used for the purposes of legal advice, being academically or journalistically discussed, or considered by Parliament.
The rules and common law jurisdiction to order access to documents by the public
CPR rule 5.4C is the primary means by which the court’s common law power to allow access to documents to the public from the court record is administered but the common law is the master and not the servant of the rules. The rules provide a qualified and controlled system of openness regulated by the court rules in a judicial manner.
Where documents are filed on the record of the court then they fall within the scope of CPR 5.4C(2).
Served documents not on the records of the court do not fall within rule 5.4C but may be disclosed under the court’s common law power.
Applicable test
Documents filed on the record of the court and which are read or treated as read in court are subject to a default position in favour of the principle of open justice if the applicant has a legitimate interest.
Where the applicant has a legitimate interest then the court must still carry out a balancing exercise in relation to any harm to other parties legitimate interests when deciding whether to allow access.
Documents on the records of the court which are not read or treated as read are subject to a more stringent test namely that there must be strong grounds for thinking that access is necessary in the interests of justice.
The principle of open justice is engaged notwithstanding that a case settles before judgment. It applies to documents in such a case which have been read to or by the court, treated as so read, or which ‘have featured in’ the proceedings.
Status of the documents
Bundles which have been filed are part of the records of the court. ‘Bundle D’ in this case does not amount to a bundle filed at court. The paper bundles do fall to be treated as filed.
The paper documents other than the bundles were retained in court at the end of trial and held together with the court files, and became documents filed on the records of the court, alternatively the documents other than those in the bundles fall within the court’s general discretion as to access. They were deployed in court and placed before the judge including after he retired to consider his decision. They were subject to what Lord Justice Toulson referred to as the ‘default position’ that access should be given on the open justice principle.
The residue of bundle D not already contained in the paper bundles is material which falls outside the scope of the default principle of openness.
There is a power to order disclosure of bundle D under the common law jurisdiction of the court, but I do not exercise those powers here.
Legitimate interest and intended use
A legitimate interest can include academic interest, use by a pressure group or use in some journalistic form and indeed any number of other uses which are ulterior (in the proper sense of that word) without being illegitimate.
Mr Dring acts for a group which provides help and support to asbestos victims. It some respects it is also a pressure group and is involved in lobbying and in promoting asbestos knowledge and safety. Those are legitimate activities and provide legitimate interest.
The intended use is to enable him and the forum of which he is an officer, to:
make the material publicly available,
by making it available to promote academic consideration as to the science and history of asbestos and asbestolux exposure and production,
improve the understanding of the genesis and legitimacy of TDN13 and any industry lobbying leading to it in the 1960s and 1970s.
understand the industrial history of Cape and its development of knowledge of asbestos safety
clarify the extent to which Cape is or is not responsible for product safety issues arising from the handling of asbestolux boards
to assist court claims and the provision of advice to asbestos disease sufferers.
Those are legitimate aims.
Specificity of application and balancing exercise<>The degree of specificity which is possible in an application under rule 5.4C must necessarily be limited in practical terms by the fact that without seeing the documents in the first place the best that can be expected so as to assist the court is that general categories of documents be identified unless there is a particular identified document which known about and is sought.
The classes sought in the statement provided with the application were:
(i) All witness statements
(ii) Experts’ reports
(iii) Transcripts of evidence
(iv) All documents disclosed by Cape and other parties.
I am satisfied that (in no order of priority) the content of those documents:
i. would be likely to be of academic and scientific interest as part of public and social discourse as to the history of asbestos safety, regulation and knowledge as it developed during the 20th century,
ii. would be likely to be considered by advisers advising parties to asbestos litigation as to the merits of their cases whenever issues arise which touch upon Technical Data Notice 13 and connected Regulations,
iii. is likely to be relevant the product safety of asbestos insofar as understood within the major manufacturers and connected companies as compared with general public at various points in the 20th century, and
iv. is likely to be relevant to the extent to which employer defendants could have been expected to appreciate the risks of asbestos.
Partial access to the documents could lead to ‘cherry picking’ in terms of the publishing of negative material especially if access was only given to material which paints asbestos, and perhaps Cape in a bad light. There is a risk, but a much reduced risk, of cherry picking if access is given less selectively and more rather than less widely.
A requirement for special circumstances is desirable in the case of disclosure documents served but not deployed at trial, in this instance bundle D, to ensure that non-parties are not placed in a better position than parties in relation to unused but served disclosure material. I do not consider that grounds have been made out for disclosure in relation to bundle D.
I was not presented with substantial evidence or argument from Cape as to harm to it would suffer from disclosure, at the level of particular documents or classes of document within the paper files.
I do not regard the post hoc concerns now raised by Cape about the privacy of persons named in the documents in connection with asbestos related disease as a ground for refusing public disclosure of these documents as a credible or weighty one in this instance.
Conclusions
The balance is in favour of disclosure of:
i. the witness statements including exhibit
ii. expert report
iii. transcripts,
iv. disclosed documents relied on by the parties at trial ie those in the paper bundles only,
v. written submissions and skeleton
vi. Statements of case to include requests for further information and answers if contained in the bundles relied on at trial.
In formal terms I am therefore allowing the application in relation to document classes (i) to (iii) listed in the statement of Ms Bains dated 6 April 2017 but only partially allowing disclosure of documents in category (iv). I am also allowing disclosure of certain other documents as is apparent from the list just set out.
I am excluding from disclosure the contents of bundle D for reasons already given. I am also excluding copies of the disclosure statements of the parties because that would tend to undermine (by giving disclosure by indirect means) the decision I have made that bundle D is not disclosed.
The Applicant may return to court to seek a decision as to access in respect of any documents in bundle D which it appears upon consideration were omitted from the paper bundles, yet were in fact relied on at court (this ought to be apparent from the documents for which access has been given as above). Bundle D shall remain impounded in court.
The documents subject to disclosure to Mr Dring shall therefore be made available by the court to the Applicant’s solicitor as an officer of the court for copying or scanning upon the giving of an undertaking that documents not within the scope of this order, if contained in the files, will not be copied.
I direct that the court file and impounded bundle D shall not be destroyed in the usual course of administration of the court without an order of the court.

Victoria McCloud M
[2017] EWHC 3154 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Constitutional

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.602135

Beech v Freeson: QBD 1972

The defendant, a Member of Parliament, wrote a letter to the Law Society with a copy to the Lord Chancellor, saying that he had been specifically requested by a constituent to refer the plaintiffs’ solicitors’ firm to the Law Society for investigation. He set out the constituent’s complaints and stated that, contrary to his usual practice he had complied with the request because he had received complaints from other constituents in the past concerning the plaintiffs’ firm. He defended the defamation action, claiming qualified privilege.
Held: Qualified privilege may arise in the making of complaints about public officials or persons with public duties to the relevant authorities.
Geoffrey Lane J said: ‘Finally, have the plaintiffs proved that the defendant was actuated by express malice? Malice includes any spite or ill-will directed from the defendant at the plaintiffs. It also includes any indirect motive. That is to say, any intention on the part of the defendant to use the occasion, not merely for the purpose for which it is a subject of qualified privilege, but for some extraneous purpose of his own not connected with privilege’
. . And ‘it seems contrary to principle that the existence of qualified privilege should depend on the mistaken belief of the defendant’.

Lane J
[1972] 1 QB 14
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedNevill v Fine Arts and General Insurance Co Ltd CA 1895
Lopes LJ said: ‘The effect of the occasion being privileged is to render it incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove malice, that is, to shew some indirect motive not connected with the privilege, so as to take the statement made by the defendant out . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Constitutional, Legal Professions

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.539180

Meerabux v The Attorney General of Belize: PC 23 Mar 2005

(Belize) The applicant complained at his removal as a justice of the Supreme Court, stating it was unconstitutional. The complaint had been decided by a member of the Bar Council which had also recommended his removal, and he said it had been decided in private.
Held: It was not suggested that the chairman had any pecuniary interest. A judge of the Supreme court had to be qualified as a barrister, and therefore be a member of the Bar Council in order to sit. Those framing the constitution must have anticipated this apparent conflict, and a chairman should therefore not be automatically disqualified. Not every proceeding must be held in public. The BAC was not a judicial body. The rules of the BAC were designed to ensure fairness, and they were not impugned by the proceedings, nor their privacy.

Lord Hoffmann, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Carswell
[2005] UKPC 12, Times 20-Apr-2005, [2005] 2 WLR 1307, [2005] 2 AC 513
Bailii, PC
Belize Constitution 98(4)
Commonwealth
Citing:
CitedRegina v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) HL 15-Jan-1999
A petition was brought to request that a judgment of the House be set aside because the wife of one their lordships, Lord Hoffmann, was as an unpaid director of a subsidiary of Amnesty International which had in turn been involved in a campaign . .
CitedPorter and Weeks v Magill HL 13-Dec-2001
Councillors Liable for Unlawful Purposes Use
The defendant local councillors were accused of having sold rather than let council houses in order to encourage an electorate which would be more likely to be supportive of their political party. They had been advised that the policy would be . .
CitedDimes v Proprietors of Grand Junction Canal and others HL 26-Jun-1852
The Lord Chancellor, Lord Cottenham, owned a substantial shareholding in the defendant canal which was an incorporated body. He sat on appeal from the Vice-Chancellor, whose judgment in favour of the company he affirmed. There was an appeal on the . .
CitedIn Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 2); Director General of Fair Trading v Proprietary Association of Great Britain and Proprietary Articles Trade Association CA 21-Dec-2000
The claimants alleged that a connection between a member of the Restrictive Practices Court, who was to hear a complaint and another company, disclosed bias against them. She had not recused herself.
Held: When asking whether material . .
CitedRegina v Gough (Robert) HL 1993
The defendant had been convicted of robbery. He appealed, saying that a member of the jury was a neighbour to his brother, and there was therefore a risk of bias. This was of particular significance as the defendant was charged with conspiracy with . .
CitedLawal v Northern Spirit Limited HL 19-Jun-2003
Counsel appearing at the tribunal had previously sat as a judge with a tribunal member. The opposing party asserted bias in the tribunal.
Held: The test in Gough should be restated in part so that the court must first ascertain all the . .
CitedLeeson v Council of Medical Education and Registration 1889
Mere membership of an association by which proceedings are brought does not disqualify a judge from hearing the case, but active involvement in the institution of the particular proceedings does. Here, mere membership of the Medical Defence Union . .
CitedAllinson v General Council of Medical Education and Registration 1894
The mere ex officio membership of the committee of the Medical Defence Union was held to be insufficient to disqualify the member from sitting on the disciplinary panel. . .
CitedPellegrin v France ECHR 8-Dec-1999
The court modified the approach taken in earlier decisions, that there are excluded from the scope of article 6(1) disputes raised by public servants whose duties typify the specific activities of the public service in so far as the latter is acting . .
CitedRegina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
CitedStewart v Secretary of State for Scotland (Scotland) HL 22-Jan-1998
The dismissal of a Scottish Sheriff ‘for inability’ is not limited in meaning to either mental or physical infirmity, but can also include simple incompetence. The fact that the inquiry into the sherriff’s unfitness was conducted in private was not . .
CitedStewart v Secretary of State for Scotland IHCS 1996
The House considered the test of unfitness of a Sherriff: ‘. . what has to be shown is that he is not really capable of performing the proper function of a judge at all.’ . .

Cited by:
CitedGillies v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 26-Jan-2006
The claimant said that the medical member of the tribunal which had heard his disability claim was biased. The doctor was on a temporary contract and also worked for an agency which contracted directly the Benfits Agency. The court of session had . .
CitedRegina v Abdroikof, Regina v Green; Regina v Williamson HL 17-Oct-2007
The House was asked whether a jury in criminal trials containing variously a Crown Prosecution Service solicitor, or a police officer would have the appearance of bias. In Abdroikof, the presence of the police officer on the jury was discovered only . .
CitedHelow v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another HL 22-Oct-2008
The appellant, a Palestinian, challenged the involvement of Lady Cosgrove as a judge in her case, saying that Lady Cosgrove’s involvement as a jew in pro-Jewish lobby organisations meant that there was an appearance of bias. The applicant had sought . .
CitedHelow v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another HL 22-Oct-2008
The appellant, a Palestinian, challenged the involvement of Lady Cosgrove as a judge in her case, saying that Lady Cosgrove’s involvement as a jew in pro-Jewish lobby organisations meant that there was an appearance of bias. The applicant had sought . .
CitedKaur, Regina (on The Application of) v Institute of Legal Executives Appeal Tribunal and Another CA 19-Oct-2011
The claimant appealed against rejection of judicial review of a finding that she had effectively cheated at a professional examination for the Institute. She compained that the presence of a director and the council’s vice-president of the Institute . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Constitutional, Natural Justice

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.223880

Goldsmith v Pressdram Ltd: CA 1988

The court considered whether to order a defamation trial to be before a judge alone, or with a jury.
Held: The word ‘examination’ has a wide connotation, is not limited to the documents which contain the actual evidence in the case and includes, for example, documents which are likely to be introduced in cross-examination.
Slade LJ said: ‘Correspondingly, I infer that the legislature, in using the particular word ‘conveniently’ in the context of the sub-section, was directing its attention to the efficient administration of justice, rather more than the probable difficulty or otherwise of issues involved There may be many cases where numerous documents will be required to be looked at, but no substantial practical difficulties are likely to arise in their examination being made with a jury. On the other hand, cases may, I concede, arise where relatively few documents will require examination, but nevertheless long and minute examination of them is likely to be required, and, because of their particular nature, a satisfactory examination of them by a jury will present formidable practical difficulties’.
Kerr LJ said: ‘Conveniently’ means, as I see it, without substantial difficulty in comparison with carrying out the same process with a Judge alone. On the issues raised in this case the investigatory process of arriving at the ultimate answer would be a difficult task for any judge despite constant reference to documents, and far more difficult, and therefore inconvenient as a forensic process, when it has to be done in a way that is capable of being followed and understood by 12 jurors’.
Nourse LJ pointed out that the right to trial of a defamation action by a jury is an important constitutional right: ‘whether someone’s reputation has or has not been falsely discredited ought to be tried by other ordinary men and women and, as Lord Camden said, it is the jury who are the people of England.’

Slade LJ, Kerr LJ, Nourse LJ
[1988] 1 WLR 64
Supreme Court Act 1961 69
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedSafeway Stores Plc v Albert Tate CA 18-Dec-2000
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 . .
CitedRight Hon Aitken MP and Preston; Pallister and Guardian Newspapers Ltd CA 15-May-1997
The defendants appealed against an order that a defamation trial should proced before a judge alone.
Held: ‘Where the parties, or one of them, is a public figure, or there are matters of national interest in question, this would suggest the . .
CitedField v Local Sunday Newspapers Limited 10-Dec-2001
The court considered whether to order jury trial of a defamation action.
Held: The triggers of ‘prolonged examination’ and ‘inconvenience’ are not two separate requirements and must be considered together, although it is convenient to take . .
CitedCollins Stewart Ltd and Another v The Financial Times Ltd QBD 20-Oct-2004
The claimants sought damages for defamation. The claimed that the article had caused very substantial losses (andpound;230 million) to them by affecting their market capitalisation value. The defendant sought to strike out that part of the claim. . .
CitedFiddes v Channel Four Television Corporation and Others CA 29-Jun-2010
The claimants in a defamation case made an interlocutory appeal against an order for trial by judge alone. The parties had agreed for trial by jury, but the defendants made a late application for trial by judge alone.
Held: The claimant’s . .
CitedBeta Construction Ltd v Channel Four Television Co Ltd CA 1990
When considering the number of documents to be considered when deciding whether a defamation case should proceed before a judge or judge and jury, the court was entitled to look also at any specialised technical content of the documents and also . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.182778

C (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions: HL 17 Mar 1995

The House considered whether the long established rule of the criminal law presuming that a child did not have a guilty mind should be set aside.
Held: Doli incapax, the presumption of a child’s lack of mens rea, is still effective and good law, but a child is not capable at law without the requisite knowledge. Judicial review was sought of the Director’s decision not to prosecute, but it was not suggested that the court’s jurisdiction to grant relief was ousted by section 29(3). Lord Lowry said that the presumption as too firmly embedded in the law of England to be removed by the judiciary: ‘Of course, no one could possibly contend (nor did Mr. Henriques try to do so) that this proposal represents what has always been the common law; it would be a change or a ‘development.’ It is quite clear that, as the law stands, the Crown must, as part of the prosecution’s case, show that a child defendant is doli capax before that child can have a case to meet. To call the proposed innovation a merely procedural change greatly understates, in my view, its radical nature, which would not be disguised by continuing to impose the persuasive burden of proof upon the prosecution. The change would not merely alter the trial procedure but would in effect get rid of the presumption of doli incapax which must now be rebutted before a child defendant can be called for his defence and the existence of which will in practice often prevent a charge from even being brought. This reflection must be enough to discourage any thought of ‘judicial legislation’ on the lines proposed.’
Only in highly exceptional cases will the court disturb the decisions of an independent prosecutor and investigator.
Lord Jauncey discussed the position in Scotland: ‘No such presumption operates in Scotland where normal criminal responsibility attaches to a child over 8 and I do not understand that injustice is considered to have resulted from this situation.’
Lord Lowry said: ‘Mr Henriques QC, presenting the respondent’s case, frankly conceded that the Divisional Court was bound by authority to recognise and apply the presumption, but he submitted that the presumption was illogical in conception and bizarre in its effect. His written case submissions based on the current educational standards of children and on the ever earlier onset of their physical and psychological maturity, as witness by the recent statutory abolition of the irrebuttable common law presumption that boys under 14 are incapable of offences involving sexual intercourse on their own part (Sexual Offences Act 1993). The written case also listed examples of legislative and judicial changes of attitude towards young children called as witnesses. Against this background counsel submitted, not that the presumption should be swept away but (echoing the 1954 proposal of Professor Glanville Williams) that in recognition of its frailties your lordships should by judicial intervention effect a change by laying it down that the prosecution’s initial burden of showing a prima facie case against a child should be the same as if the accused were an adult but that the child should then be able by evidence to raise as a defence the issue that he was doli incapax; it would then be for the prosecution to prove to the criminal standard that the child was doli capax. That your Lordships in a judicial capacity could make this change which counsel categorised as merely procedural, was an express and necessary part of his argument.

Of course no one could possibly contend (nor did Mr Henriques try to do so) that this proposal represents what has always been the common law; it would be a change or ‘development’. It is quite clear that as the law stands, the Crown must, as part of the prosecution’s case show that a child defendant is doli capax before that child can have a case to meet. To call the proposed innovation a merely procedural change greatly understates, in my view, its radical nature, which would not be disguised by continuing to impose the persuasive burden of proof upon the prosecution. The change would not merely alter the trial procedure but would in effect get rid of the presumption of doli incapax which must now be rebutted before a child defendant can be called for his defence and the existence of which will in practice often prevent a charge from even being brought. This reflection must be enough to discourage any thoughts of ‘judicial legislation’ on the lines proposed. ‘

and ‘One solution which has been suggested is to abolish the presumption with or without an increase in the minimum age of criminal responsibility. This, as Mr Robertson pointed out, could expose children to the full criminal process at an earlier age than most countries of Western Europe.’

Lord Lowry, Lord Jauncey
Times 17-Mar-1995, Independent 21-Mar-1995, (1995) Cr App R 136, [1995] UKHL 15, [1996] AC 1, [1995] RTR 261, [1995] 2 All ER 43, [1995] 2 WLR 383, (1995) 159 JP 269, [1995] 1 FLR 933, [1995] Fam Law 400, [1995] Crim LR 801
Bailii
Supreme Courts Act 1981 29(3), Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985 10
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromC (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 30-Mar-1994
The 12 year old defendant held the handlebars of a motorcycle allowing a second boy to try to remove the chain and padlock securing it. He appealed against his conviction.
Held: The presumption of doli incapax for a 10-14 year old child is no . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina (Pretty) v Director of Public Prosecutions, and Another, Medical Ethics Alliance and Others, interveners Admn 18-Oct-2001
The function of the Director’s office is statutory, and his powers are those laid down. He is not able to excuse possible criminal conduct in advance, and nor could he establish a policy of not applying certain statutory provisions. The Suicide Act . .
CitedLewin v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 24-May-2002
The applicant sought review of the decision of the respondent not to initiate a prosecution in respect of a death in Spain. The deceased had been left drunk and unconscious in a car in the sun. There was a variance of opinion as to the exact cause . .
CitedRegina v Department of Education and Employment ex parte Begbie CA 20-Aug-1999
A statement made by a politician as to his intentions on a particular matter if elected could not create a legitimate expectation as regards the delivery of the promise after elected, even where the promise would directly affect individuals, and the . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Jones and Lloyd HL 4-Mar-1999
21 people protested peacefully on the verge of the A344, next to the perimeter fence at Stonehenge. Some carried banners saying ‘Never Again,’ ‘Stonehenge Campaign 10 years of Criminal Injustice’ and ‘Free Stonehenge.’ The officer in charge . .
CitedRegina v Director of Public Prosecutions ex parte Treadaway Admn 31-Jul-1997
The applicant had been convicted of a robbery and served a long prison sentence. After release he was awarded damages against some of the policie officers for assault. The DPP decided not to proceed against the officers by way of criminal . .
CitedCorner House Research and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Serious Fraud Office HL 30-Jul-2008
SFO Director’s decisions reviewable
The director succeeded on his appeal against an order declaring unlawful his decision to discontinue investigations into allegations of bribery. The Attorney-General had supervisory duties as to the exercise of the duties by the Director. It had . .
CitedJTB, Regina v HL 29-Apr-2009
The defendant appealed against his convictions for sexual assaults. He was aged twelve at the time of the offences, but had been prevented from arguing that he had not known that what he was doing was wrong. The House was asked whether the effect of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Children, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.78793

Shindler and Another v Chancellor of The Duchy of Lancaster and Another: CA 20 May 2016

UK free to disenfranchise citizens resident abroad

The claimants appealed against rejection of their challenges to the 2015 Act. As British citizens who had lived abroad for more than fifteen years, they were not to be allowed to vote.
Held: The claim failed. The Act was not in breach of European law supporting freedom of movement. The EU had recognised that the decision of a Member State to withdraw is an exercise of national sovereignty which is governed by its own constitutional arrangements. The Act fell outside the scope of European law. Nor did any right at common law override the precedence given to an Act of Parliament.
Lord Dyson MR said that ‘Parliament agreed to join the EU by exercising sovereign powers untrammelled by EU law and I think it would expect to be able to leave the EU in the exercise of the same untrammelled sovereign power’.

Lord Dyson MR, Elias, King LJJ
C1/2016/1796, [2016] EWCA Civ 469, [2016] WLR(D) 273, [2016] HRLR 14, [2016] 3 WLR 1196, [2017] QB 226, [2016] 3 CMLR 23
Bailii, Judiciary, JGU Summary, WLRD
EU Referendum Act 2105 2
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromShindler and Another v Chancellor of The Duchy of Lancaster and Another Admn 28-Apr-2016
The claimants challenged the franchise for the forthcoming European Referendum which excluded them rom voting on the basis that they were not resident within the UK and had neot been registered to vote here for more than five years.
Held: ‘1) . .

Cited by:
CitedMcCord, Re Judicial Review QBNI 28-Oct-2016
The claimant made application for judicial review of the stated intention of the Government of the UK to issue an article 50 notice to leave the EU, by means of the use of the royal Prerogative. They said that any use of the royal prerogative had . .
CitedMiller and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Exiting The European Union SC 24-Jan-2017
Parliament’s Approval if statute rights affected
In a referendum, the people had voted to leave the European Union. That would require a notice to the Union under Article 50 TEU. The Secretary of State appealed against an order requiring Parliamentary approval before issuing the notice, he saying . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections, European, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.564452

Buttes Gas and Oil Co v Hammer (No 3): HL 1981

In a defamation action, issues arose as to two conflicting oil concessions which neighbouring states in the Arabian Gulf had granted over their territorial and offshore waters. The foreign relations of the United Kingdom and Iran were also involved in the dispute. The authorities concerning acts of state were reviewed for the purpose of a submission by the defendants that the action raised issues which were non-justiciable in English courts and should therefore be stayed. The motives of governments are not justiciable and courts should refrain from adjudicating upon them. The House considered an action by an officer of the Crown taken outside this country against foreigners otherwise than under colour of legal right.
Held: The principle of non-justiciability was applicable. ‘The important inter-state issues and/or issues of international law which would face the court . . have only to be stated to compel the conclusion that these are not issues upon which a municipal court can pass. . [There are no judicial or manageable standards by which to judge [the] issues or to adopt another phrase . . the court would be in a judicial no-man’s land: the court would be asked to review transactions in which four sovereign states were involved, which they had brought to a precarious settlement, after diplomacy and the use of force, and to say that at least part of these were ‘unlawful’ under international law. I would just add . . that it is not to be assumed that these matters have now passed into history, so that they now can be examined with safe detachment.’ and ‘ There is ‘a more general principle that the courts will not adjudicate upon the transactions of foreign sovereign states . . one for judicial restraint or abstention . . not one of discretion, but . . inherent in the very nature of the judicial process.’
On the plaintiff’s application to strike out the counterclaim, Lord Wilberforce concluded: ‘It would not be difficult to elaborate on these considerations, or to perceive other important inter-state issues and/or issues of international law which would face the court. They have only to be stated to compel the conclusion that these are not issues upon which a municipal court can pass. Leaving aside all possibility of embarrassment in our foreign relations (which it can be said not to have been drawn to the attention of the court by the executive) there are – to follow the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals – no judicial or manageable standards by which to judge these issues, or to adopt another phrase (from a passage not quoted), the court would be in a judicial no-man’s land: the court would be asked to review transactions in which four sovereign states were involved, which they had brought to a precarious settlement, after diplomacy and the use of force, and to say that at least part of these were ‘unlawful’ under international law. I would just add, in answer to one of the respondents’ arguments, that it is not to be assumed that these matters have now passed into history, so that they now can be examined with safe detachment.’

Lord Wilberforce
[1982] AC 888, [1981] 3 All ER 616, [1981] 3 WLR 787
England and Wales
Citing:
ApprovedDuke of Brunswick v The King of Hanover HL 31-Jul-1948
The Duke claimed that the King of Hanover had been involved in the removal of the Duke from his position as reigning Duke and in the maladministration of his estates.
Held: ‘A foreign Sovereign, coming into this country cannot be made . .
Appeal fromButtes Gas and Oil Co v Hammer (No 3) CA 1981
The mere reference to a document in the pleadings was not an automatic waiver of any legal professional privilege. . .
CitedUnderhill v Hernandez 29-Nov-1897
(US Supreme Court) Underhill, a US citizen, had constructed a waterworks in Bolivar for the government which was eventually overthrown by revolutionary forces, one of whose generals was Hernandez. After Hernandez had captured Bolivar, Underhill . .

Cited by:
CitedKuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company and Others (Nos 4 and 5) HL 16-May-2002
After the invasion of Kuwait, the Iraqi government had dissolved Kuwait airlines, and appropriated several airplanes. Four planes were destroyed by Allied bombing, and 6 more were appropriated again by Iran.
Held: The appeal failed. No claim . .
CitedJones v Ministry of Interior Al-Mamlaka Al-Arabiya As Saudiya Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) and Another CA 28-Oct-2004
The claimants sought damages alleging torture by the respondent whilst held in custody in Saudi Arabia.
Held: Although the state enjoyed freedom from action, where the acts were ones of torture, and action could proceed against state officials . .
CitedRegina v Bartle and The Commissioner Of Police For The Metropolis and Others Ex Parte Pinochet Ugarte, Regina v Evans and Another and The Commissioner of Police For The Metropolis and Others (No 1) HL 22-Nov-1998
The government of Spain had issued an arrest warrant and application for extradition in respect of Pinochet Ugarte for his alleged crimes whilst president of Chile. He was arrested in England. He pleaded that he had immunity from prosecution.
CitedOccidental Exploration and Production Company vRepublic of Ecuador CA 9-Sep-2005
The parties had arbitrated their dispute in London under a bilateral investment treaty between the US and Ecuador. The republic sought to appeal the arbitration. The applicant now appealed an order that the English High Court had jurisdiction to . .
CitedRegina (on the application of Abassi and Another) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Another CA 6-Nov-2002
A British national had been captured in Afghanistan, and was being held without remedy by US forces. His family sought an order requiring the respondent to take greater steps to secure his release or provide other assistance.
Held: Such an . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte British Council of Turkish Cypriot Associations and Another Admn 19-Mar-1998
The applicants sought judicial review of the respondent’s decision to support the application for admission to the Eurorpean Community of Cyprus.
Held: Leave was refused: ‘the independence of Cyprus since 17th August 1960 forecloses any power . .
CitedGentle and Clarke, Regina (on the Application Of) v Prime Minister and others CA 12-Dec-2006
The claimants appealed refusal of a judicial review of the defendant’s decision to enter into the war in Iraq. The claimants were parents of troops who had died in the war. They said that the legal advice given to the government was incorrect.
CitedGentle, Regina (on the Application of) and Another v The Prime Minister and Another HL 9-Apr-2008
The appellants were mothers of two servicemen who had died whilst on active service in Iraq. They appealed refusal to grant a public inquiry. There had already been coroners inquests. They said that Article 2 had been infringed.
Held: The . .
CitedCorner House Research and Campaign Against Arms Trade, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office and Another Admn 10-Apr-2008
The defendant had had responsibility to investigate and if necessary prosecute a company suspected of serious offences of bribery and corruption in the conduct of contract negotiations. The investigation had been stopped, alledgedly at the . .
CitedKorea National Insurance Company v Allianz Global Corporate and Specialty Ag ComC 18-Nov-2008
The claimant sought to enforce a judgment for payment of a sum under a policy of insurance. The defendant sought to refuse saying that the policy had been instigated by a fraud perpetrated by the state of North Korea, and or that the judicial system . .
CitedLucasfilm Ltd and Others v Ainsworth and Another SC 27-Jul-2011
The claimant had produced the Star War films which made use of props, in particular a ‘Stormtrooper’ helmet designed by the defendant. The defendant had then himself distributed models of the designs he had created. The appellant obtained judgment . .
CitedKhaira and Others v Shergill and Others CA 17-Jul-2012
The parties disputed the trusteeship and governance of two Gurdwaras (Sikh temples). The defendants now applied for the claim to be struck out on the basis that the differences were as to Sikh doctrines and practice and as such were unjusticiable. . .
CitedShergill and Others v Khaira and Others SC 11-Jun-2014
The parties disputed the trusts upon which three Gurdwaras (Sikh Temples) were held. The Court of Appeal had held that the issues underlying the dispute were to be found in matters of the faith of the Sikh parties, and had ordered a permanent stay. . .
CitedBelhaj and Another v Straw and Others SC 17-Jan-2017
The claimant alleged complicity by the defendant, (now former) Foreign Secretary, in his mistreatment by the US while held in Libya. He also alleged involvement in his unlawful abduction and removal to Libya, from which had had fled for political . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, International, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.179879

Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd: PC 27 Jun 1994

(New Zealand) The plaintiff, an MP, pursued a defamation case. The defendant wished to argue for the truth of what was said, and sought to base his argument on things said in Parliament. The plaintiff responded that this would be a breach of Parliamentary privilege.
Held: A Defendant may not use libel proceedings to impugn proceedings in Parliament in his defence though the proceedings might accordingly be stayed. ‘the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.’ This provision is part of the wider principle that the courts and Parliament are both astute to recognise their constitutional roles.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson said: ‘In addition to Article 9 itself, there is a long line of authority which supports a wider principle, of which Article 9 is merely one manifestation, viz. that the courts and Parliament are both astute to recognise their respective constitutional roles. So far as the courts are concerned they will not allow any challenge to be made to what was said or done within the walls of Parliament in performance of its legislative function and protection of its established privileges.’
The ‘case illustrate[s] how public policy, or human rights, issues can conflict. There are three such issues in play in these cases: first, the need to ensure that the legislature can exercise its powers freely on behalf of its electors, with access to all relevant information; second, the need to protect freedom of speech generally; third, the interests of justice in ensuring that all relevant evidence is available to the courts. Their Lordships are of the view that the law has been long settled that, of these three public interests, the first must prevail. But the other two public interests cannot be ignored and their Lordships will revert to them in considering the question of a stay of proceedings.
For these reasons (which are in substance those of the courts below) their Lordships are of the view that parties to litigation, by whomsoever commenced, cannot bring into question anything said or done in the House by suggesting (whether by direct evidence, cross-examination, inference or submission) that the actions or words were inspired by improper motives or were untrue or misleading. Such matters lie entirely within the jurisdiction of the House . .’

Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord keith, Lord Goff, Lord Mustill, Lord Nolan
Times 13-Jul-1994, Gazette 26-Oct-1994, [1995] 1 AC 321, [1994] 3 NZLR 1, [1994] 3 WLR 970
Bailii
Bill of Rights 1689 9
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedComalco Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Corporation 1983
(Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory) Hansard was admissible to show what had been said in the Queensland Parliament as a matter of fact, without the need for the consent of Parliament. Blackburn CJ added: ‘I think that the way in . .
CitedSir Francis Burdett, Bart v The Right Hon Charles Abbot KBD 1811
Speaker’s Powers to Arrest House Members
To an action of trespass against the Speaker of the House of Commons for forcibly, and, with the assistance of armed soldiers, breaking into the messuage of the plaintiff (the outer door being shut and fastened,) and arresting him there, and taking . .
CitedStockdale v Hansard 1839
Bailii It is no defence in law to an action for publishing a libel, that defamatory matter is part of a order of the House of Commons, laid before the House, and thereupon became part of the proceedings of the . .
CitedJohn Joseph Stockdale v James Hansard, Luke Graves Hansard, Luke James Hansard, And Luke Henry Hansard 1839
It is no defence in law to an action for publishing a libel that the defamatory matter is part of a document which was, by order of the House of Comnions, laid before the House, and thereupon became part of the proceedings of the House, and which . .
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 . .
CitedRex v Eliot, Hollis and Valentine 1629
Proceedings were taken in the King’s Bench against three members of the House of Commons, who were charged with seditious speeches, contempt of the King (Charles I) in resisting the adjournment of the House and with conspiracy to keep the Speaker in . .
CitedPepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart HL 26-Nov-1992
Reference to Parliamentary Papers behind Statute
The inspector sought to tax the benefits in kind received by teachers at a private school in having their children educated at the school for free. Having agreed this was a taxable emolument, it was argued as to whether the taxable benefit was the . .
Not followedWright and Advertiser Newspapers Limited v Lewis 1990
(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, . .
CitedPickin v British Railways Board HL 30-Jan-1974
Courts Not to Investigate Parliament’s Actions
It was alleged that the respondent had misled Parliament to secure the passing of a private Act. The claimant said that the land taken from him under the Act was no longer required, and that he should be entitled to have it returned.
Held: . .
CitedChurch of Scientology of California v Johnson-Smith QBD 1971
The plaintiff church sued the defendant, a Member of Parliament, for remarks made by the defendant in a television programme. He pleaded fair comment and the plaintiff replied with a plea of malice, relying on statements made in Parliament. The . .
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 . .
CitedAdam v Ward HL 1917
The plaintiff, Major Adam MP, falsely attacked General Scobell in a speech in the House of Commons, thus bringing his charge into the national arena. The Army Council investigated the charge, rejected it and directed their secretary, Sir E Ward, the . .
CitedDerbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others HL 18-Feb-1993
Local Council may not Sue in Defamation
Local Authorities must be open to criticism as political and administrative bodies, and so cannot be allowed to sue in defamation. Such a right would operate as ‘a chill factor’ on free speech. Freedom of speech was the underlying value which . .
CitedNews Media Ownership v Finlay 1970
(New Zealand Court of Appeal ) The plaintiff, a Member of Parliament, brought libel proceedings against a newspaper in respect of an article appearing in the newspaper which alleged that the plaintiff had been acting improperly and for purposes of . .

Cited by:
CitedWilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) HL 10-Jul-2003
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent of its property . .
CitedThe 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 PC 26-Jul-2000
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.
CitedReynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
Fair Coment on Political Activities
The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .
CitedHarmon CFEM Facades (UK) Limited v The Corporate Officer of The House of Commons TCC 28-Oct-1999
The claimant said that the respondent had awarded a contract for works at the House of Commons disregarding its obligations under European law as regards open tendering. . .
CitedJennings v Buchanan PC 14-Jul-2004
(New Zealand) (Attorney General of New Zealand intervening) The defendant MP had made a statement in Parliament which attracted parliamentary privilege. In a subsequent newspaper interview, he said ‘he did not resile from his claim’. He defended the . .
CitedHamilton v Al Fayed HL 23-Mar-2000
The claimant MP sued the defendant in defamation after he had alleged that the MP had corruptly solicited and received payments and benefits in kind as a reward for parliamentary services rendered.
Held: Parliament has protected by privilege . .
CitedCountryside Alliance and others v HM Attorney General and others Admn 29-Jul-2005
The various claimants sought to challenge the 2004 Act by way of judicial review on the grounds that it was ‘a disproportionate, unnecessary and illegitimate interference with their rights to choose how they conduct their lives, and with market . .
CitedWeir and others v Secretary of State for Transport and Another ChD 14-Oct-2005
The claimants were shareholders in Railtrack. They complained that the respondent had abused his position to place the company into receivership so as to avoid paying them compensation on a repurchase of the shares. Mr Byers was accused of ‘targeted . .
CitedBradley and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 21-Feb-2007
The claimant had lost his company pension and complained that the respondent had refused to follow the recommendation of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration that compensation should be paid.
Held: The court should not rely on . .
CitedOffice of Government Commerce v Information Commissioner and Another Admn 11-Apr-2008
The Office appealed against decisions ordering it to release information about the gateway reviews for the proposed identity card system, claiming a qualified exemption from disclosure under the 2000 Act.
Held: The decision was set aside for . .
CitedAge UK, Regina (On the Application of) v Attorney General Admn 25-Sep-2009
Age UK challenged the implementation by the UK of the Directive insofar as it established a default retirement age (DRA) at 65.
Held: The claim failed. The decision to adopt a DRA was not a disproportionate way of giving effect to the social . .
CitedRegina v Morley; Regina v Chaytor; Regina v Devine; Regina v Lord Hanningfield CC 11-Jun-2010
(Southwark Crown Court) The defendants faced charges of false accounting in connection with expense claims as members of parliament, three of the House of Commons and one of the Lords. Each claimed that the matter was covered by Parliamentary . .
CitedChaytor and Others, Regina v CACD 30-Jul-2010
The defendants had been members of the Houses of Commons and of Lords. They faced charges of dishonesty in respect of their expenses claims. They now appealed a finding that they were not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament under . .
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 . .
CitedShergill and Others v Khaira and Others SC 11-Jun-2014
The parties disputed the trusts upon which three Gurdwaras (Sikh Temples) were held. The Court of Appeal had held that the issues underlying the dispute were to be found in matters of the faith of the Sikh parties, and had ordered a permanent stay. . .
CitedMakudi v Baron Triesman of Tottenham CA 26-Feb-2014
Appeal against strike out of claims for defamation and malicious falsehood. The defendant had given evidence to the Culture Media and Sport Select Committee of the House of Commons with material highly critical of the claimant, a member of FIFA’s . .
Distinguished on the factsBlake v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 31-Jul-2003
The claimant, a former Anglican priest, sued in defamation. The defendant argued that the claim was non-justiciable since it would require the court to adjudicate on matters of faith and religious doctrine.
Held: The claim could not be heard. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.85015

McGonnell v The United Kingdom: ECHR 8 Feb 2000

The applicant owned land in the parish of St Martin’s in Guernsey. He made a number of applications for planning permission for residential use, but they were all rejected. In about 1986 he moved into a converted packing shed on his land. In 1988 a draft Detailed Development Plan for the island was under consideration and, at the public inquiry, the applicant made representations to the effect that construction of a residential building on his land should be permitted. The inspector rejected that contention and supported the proposal in the draft development plan for the land to be zoned as an area reserved for agricultural purposes and in which development was generally prohibited. In 1990 the States of Deliberation, presided over by the Deputy Bailiff, Mr Graham Dorey, debated and adopted the development plan. Three years later the applicant made a formal application for a change of use for his land. The relevant planning committee rejected the application and the applicant appealed to the Royal Court, comprising the Bailiff, Sir Graham Dorey, and seven Jurats. The applicant’s representative accepted that the written statement in the development plan provided for no development other than Developed Glasshouse, but he submitted that there were none the less reasons to permit a change of use in the particular case. The Royal Court dismissed the appeal. Where a member of a legislature with some direct responsibility for the passing of legislation was also acting as a member of the judiciary with responsibility for enforcing the laws passed, this inevitably gave an impression of bias and lack of impartiality. Here the Deputy Bailiff of Guernsey was also President of the states of direction. Consideration must be given to the method and security of judicial appointments, guarantees against outside pressures, and whether there was a proper presentation of independence: ‘ the mere fact that the Deputy Bailiff presided over the States of Deliberation when DDP6 was adopted in 1990 is capable of casting doubt on his impartiality when he subsequently determined, as the sole judge of the law in the case, the applicant’s planning appeal. The applicant therefore had legitimate grounds for fearing that the Bailiff may have been influenced by his prior participation in the adoption of DDP6. That doubt in itself, however slight its justification, is sufficient to vitiate the impartiality of the Royal Court, ‘

Times 22-Feb-2000, 28488/95, (2000) 30 EHRR 289, [2000] ECHR 62
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1
Human Rights
Citing:
CitedFindlay v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Feb-1997
The applicant complained that the members of a court-martial were appointed by the Convening Officer, who was closely linked to the prosecuting authorities. The members of the court-martial were subordinate in rank to the Convening Officer who had . .

Cited by:
CitedDavidson 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 . .
DistinguishedPabla Ky v Finland ECHR 22-Jun-2004
A member of the Finnish Parliament who also sat as an expert member of the Court of Appeal was said to lack independence as a judge.
Held: The complaint was rejected. Also there was no no objective justification for the applicant’s fear as to . .
CitedAl-Hasan, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Feb-2005
Prisoners were disciplined after refusing to be squat searched, saying that the procedure was humiliating and that there were no reasonable grounds to suspect them of any offence against prison discipline. The officer who had been involved in . .
CitedBarclay and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Seigneur of Sark and Another Admn 18-Jun-2008
The claimants said that the the laws restricting residence and voting rights and oher constitutional arrangements on the Isle of Sark were in breach of European law, and human rights law.
Held: The claims failed. The composition of Chief Pleas . .
CitedBarclay and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and others CA 2-Dec-2008
The claimant appealed against refusal of his challenge to the new constitutional law for Sark, and sought a declaration of incompatibility under the 1998 Act. He said that by restricting the people who could stand for election, a free democracy had . .
CitedBarclay and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Others SC 1-Dec-2009
The claimants said that restrictions within the constitution of Sark on who could sit in the Chief Pleas were incompatible with their human rights. The claimants variously owned property on Sark but had restricted rights to vote and stand.
Constitutional, Human Rights

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.165817

Barron and Others v Collins: QBD 16 May 2016

The defendant MEP sought an order staying the defamation action brought against her by four MPs from the Rotherham area. She said that as an MEP she had a procedural immunity. She had informed the European Commission that she sought the protection which might be available.
Held: The right approach to the decision in Marra is to treat the term ‘informed’ as requiring a formal communication to the court from the Parliament. There is good reason for that approach, as it gives effect to the underlying principle which is one of co-operation between the Parliament and the national bodies, in their capacities as institutions. Further, this approach allows the Parliament a role in assessing a request for the defence of privilege before it decides to communicate with a national court. The stay should be granted pending the reply of the Parliament, but it would then be for the national court to make the decision.

Warby J
[2016] EWHC 1166 (QB)
Bailii
Citing:
CitedCriminal Proceedings Against Zwartveld and Others ECJ 13-Jul-1990
Europa European Communities – Institutions – Obligations – Duty to cooperate with national authorities acting to ensure respect for Community law – Implementation – Disclosure of documents and authorization of . .
CitedMarra v De Gregorio C-200/07 ECJ 21-Oct-2008
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling European- Parliament – Leaflet issued by a Member of the European Parliament containing insulting remarks Claim for non-pecuniary damages Immunity of Members of the European . .
CitedPatriciello (Privileges And Immunities) ECJ 9-Jun-2011
ECJ Member of the European Parliament – Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities – Scope of the concept of’opinion expressed in the exercise of parliamentary duties’ – Criminal proceedings for . .
See AlsoBarron MP and Others v Collins MEP QBD 29-Apr-2015
Trial of preliminary issues in for defamation. The claimants, MPs for Rotherham areas, said that a speech by the defendant to the UKIP conference and repeated on TV contained assertions defamatory of them.
Held: The words complained of bore . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, European, Constitutional

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.564497

Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 4): Admn 4 Feb 2009

In an earlier judgment, redactions had been made relating to reports by the US government of its treatment of the claimant when held by them at Guantanamo bay. The claimant said he had been tortured and sought the documents to support his defence of his case in the US. The remaining issue was as to whether the earlier judgment should now be made available without redactions.
Held: An allegation of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment was to be treated on the same basis as torture in the circumstances of the present case, and a claim to conceal evidence of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or torture under the guise of public interest immunity could not be countenanced as it was incompatible with international law and values. ‘It is the upholding of the rule of law . . that is a factor of the greatest public interest in this case, given the allegations against officials of the United States Government and the role of officials of the Government of the United Kingdom in facilitating what is alleged.’ The requirements of open justice, the rule of law and democratic accountability demonstrate the very considerable public interest in making the redacted paragraphs public, particularly given the constitutional importance of the prohibition against torture and its historic link from the seventeenth century in this jurisdiction to the necessity of open justice. Nevertheless the US had threatened that disclosure would undermine the intelligence relationship with the UK. The alternatives were not adequate. The court could not go behind the Foreign Secretary’s assertion that disclosure would undermine the ability of the state to protect its citizens. The details would not be disclosed. If they are to be disclosed it must be by the US government.
The court identified four questions for redaction:- a) Is there a public interest in bringing the redacted paragraph into the public domain? b) Will disclosure bring about a real risk of serious harm to an important public interest, and if so, which interest? c) Can the real risk of serious harm to national security be protected by other methods or more limited disclosure? d) If the alternatives are insufficient, where does the balance of the public interest lie?

Thomas LJ, Lloyd Jones J
[2009] EWHC 152 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoMohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 1) Admn 21-Aug-2008
The claimant had been detained by the US in Guantanamo Bay suspected of terrorist involvement. He sought to support his defence documents from the respondent which showed that the evidence to be relied on in the US courts had been obtained by . .
See AlsoMohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) Admn 29-Aug-2008
The claimant sought release of documents so that he could defend himself in a tribunal in the US. He said the documents would support his assertion that he had been subject to extraordinary rendition and had ‘disappeared’ for two years. Redactions . .
See AlsoMohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Admn 22-Oct-2008
The claimant was held by the US. He claimed he had been tortured by them, and sought release of dicuments which allow him to present his case. The respondent sought to prevent disclosure using Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificates.
Held: . .
CitedNorwich Pharmacal Co and others v Customs and Excise Commissioners HL 26-Jun-1973
Innocent third Party May still have duty to assist
The plaintiffs sought discovery from the defendants of documents received by them innocently in the exercise of their statutory functions. They sought to identify people who had been importing drugs unlawfully manufactured in breach of their . .
CitedAttorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) (‘Spycatcher’) HL 13-Oct-1988
Loss of Confidentiality Protection – public domain
A retired secret service employee sought to publish his memoirs from Australia. The British government sought to restrain publication there, and the defendants sought to report those proceedings, which would involve publication of the allegations . .
Citedex parte Guardian Newspapers Ltd CACD 30-Sep-1998
The defendants purported to serve a notice under Rule 24A(1) of the Crown Court Rules 1982 of an intention to apply for a hearing in camera of their application that the trial be stopped as an abuse of process.
Held: Where an application was . .
CitedC v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 8-Feb-2008
The court considered the practice of hearing submissions from the media in relation to reporting restrictions.
Held: Thomas LJ rejected the submission that, in conducting the Re S balancing exercise the Court should have regard to the public . .
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v MB; Same v AF HL 31-Oct-2007
Non-derogating control orders – HR Compliant
MB and AF challenged non-derogating control orders made under the 2005 Act, saying that they were incompatible with their human rights. AF was subject to a curfew of 14 hours a day, wore an electronic tag at all times, could not leave a nine square . .
CitedWilliams v Home Office (No 2) 2-Jan-1981
The plaintiff prisoner had been transferred from ordinary prison to a special control unit which had been established at the prison as a means of containing and controlling prisoners who were considered to be troublemakers and inducing them to . .
CitedRegina v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police Ex Parte Wiley; Other Similar HL 14-Jul-1994
Statements made to the police to support a complaint against the police, were not part of the class of statements which could attract public interest immunity, and were therefore liable to disclosure.
Lord Woolf said: ‘The recognition of a new . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
CitedScott v Scott HL 5-May-1913
Presumption in Favour of Open Proceedings
There had been an unauthorised dissemination by the petitioner to third parties of the official shorthand writer’s notes of a nullity suit which had been heard in camera. An application was made for a committal for contempt.
Held: The House . .
CitedRegina v Keane CACD 15-Mar-1994
Public Interest Immunity Certificates for the protection of informants must be used only carefully. The Crown must specify the purpose of the public interest immunity certificate. The principles on disclosure in Ward are not limited to scientific . .
CitedRegina v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, ex Parte Bennett (No 1) HL 24-Jun-1993
The defendant had been brought to the UK in a manner which was in breach of extradition law. He had, in effect, been kidnapped by the authorities.
Held: The High Court may look at how an accused person was brought within the jurisdiction when . .
CitedDerbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others HL 18-Feb-1993
Local Council may not Sue in Defamation
Local Authorities must be open to criticism as political and administrative bodies, and so cannot be allowed to sue in defamation. Such a right would operate as ‘a chill factor’ on free speech. Freedom of speech was the underlying value which . .
CitedConway v Rimmer HL 28-Feb-1968
Crown Privilege for Documents held by the Polie
The plaintiff probationary police constable had been investigated, prosecuted and cleared of an allegation of theft. He now claimed damages for malicious prosecution, and in the course of the action, sought disclosure of five documents, but these . .
CitedRegina v British Broadcasting Corporation ex parte Pro-life Alliance HL 15-May-2003
The Alliance was a political party seeking to air its party election broadcast. The appellant broadcasters declined to broadcast the film on the grounds that it was offensive, being a graphical discussion of the processes of abortion.
Held: . .
CitedRegina v Shayler HL 21-Mar-2002
The defendant had been a member of the security services. On becoming employed, and upon leaving, he had agreed to keep secret those matters disclosed to him. He had broken those agreements and was being prosecuted. He sought a decision that the . .
CitedMcCartan Turkington Breen (A Firm) v Times Newspapers Limited HL 2-Nov-2000
(Northern Ireland) The defendant reported a press conference at which the claims denying the criminal responsibility of an army private were made. The report was severely critical of the claimants, who then sued in defamation. The defendants claimed . .
CitedAttorney-General v Leveller Magazine Ltd HL 1-Feb-1979
The appellants were magazines and journalists who published, after committal proceedings, the name of a witness, a member of the security services, who had been referred to as Colonel B during the hearing. An order had been made for his name not to . .
CitedCastells v Spain ECHR 23-Apr-1992
The conviction of the applicant for publishing in a weekly magazine an article which insulted the government with the penalty of disqualification from public office, violated the applicants freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10. ‘ . .
CitedObserver and Guardian v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-Nov-1991
The newspapers challenged orders preventing their publication of extracts of the ‘Spycatcher’ book.
Held: The dangers inherent in prior restraints are such that they call for the most careful scrutiny on the part of the court. This is . .
CitedPretto And Others v Italy ECHR 8-Dec-1983
The court considered the value of court proceedings being public: ‘The public character of proceedings before the judicial bodies referred to in Article 6(1) protects litigants against the administration of justice in secret with no public scrutiny; . .
CitedCampbell and Fell v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-Jun-1984
Campbell and others had been involved in conduct within the prison leading to charges against them of mutiny and of striking an officer with a broom handle. The nature of the conduct in question was plainly susceptible of giving rise to criminal . .
CitedHector v Attorney General of Antigua PC 1990
Lord Bridge of Harwich said that: ‘In a free democratic society it is almost too obvious to need stating that those who hold office in government and who are responsible for public administration must always be open to criticism. Any attempt to . .
CitedRegina v Felixstowe Justices ex parte Leigh CA 1987
The court considered the importance of the role played by the media in attending and reporting court proceedings. Watkins LJ said: ‘The role of the journalist and his importance for the public interest in the administration of justice has been . .
CitedAssenov and Others v Bulgaria ECHR 28-Oct-1998
An allegation of violence by a police officer did require a thorough, impartial and careful investigation by a suitable and independent state authority: ‘The court considers that in these circumstances, where an individual raises an arguable claim . .
CitedCorner House Research and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Serious Fraud Office HL 30-Jul-2008
SFO Director’s decisions reviewable
The director succeeded on his appeal against an order declaring unlawful his decision to discontinue investigations into allegations of bribery. The Attorney-General had supervisory duties as to the exercise of the duties by the Director. It had . .
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman HL 11-Oct-2001
The applicant, a Pakistani national had entered the UK to act as a Muslim priest. The Home Secretary was satisfied that he was associated with a Muslim terrorist organisation, and refused indefinite leave to remain. The Home Secretary provided both . .
CitedTweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland HL 13-Dec-2006
(Northern Ireland) The applicant sought judicial review of a decision not to disclose documents held by the respondent to him saying that the refusal was disproportionate and infringed his human rights. The respondents said that the documents were . .

Cited by:
CitedAl-Sweady and Others, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary Of State for Defence (PII) Admn 10-Jul-2009
The claimants alleged murder and ill-treatment by the British Armed forces in Iraq. The defendant had failed repeatedly to comply with disclosure orders and an indemnity costs award had been made against him. The defendant had in particular . .
See AlsoMohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 5) Admn 16-Oct-2009
The claimant sought to assert that he had been tortured whilst held by the US Authorities. He sought publication of an unredacted report supplied by the US security services to the respondent. The respondent argued that the full publication was . .
See AlsoMohamed, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (60 Admn 19-Nov-2009
The respondent had over time refused to allow publication of parts of a document disclosed to him by US security services. The court had previously delivered redacted judgments, and now asked whether and to what extent the redacted parts should be . .
See AlsoMohamed, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs CA 10-Feb-2010
The claimant had sought discovery and publication of materials supplied to the defendant by US security services which, he said, would support his allegations that he had been tortured by the US and that this had been known to the defendant.
See AlsoBinyan Mohamed, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs CA 26-Feb-2010
The claimant had sought public disclosure of documents supplied to the defendant by US security services which might support his claim that he had been tortured by the US, and that the defendant knew of it. The draft judgment was to be handed down . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Human Rights, Constitutional, Media

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.282626

Rex v Cheltenham Commissioners: QBD 1841

A statute provided that any decision of the Quarter Sessions as to the levying of certain rates was to be ‘final, binding, and conclusive to all intents and purposes whatsoever’, and that no order made in that connection ‘shall . . be removed or removable by certiorari, or any other writ or process whatsoever, . . ; any law or statute to the contrary thereof in anywise notwithstanding’. An application was made on the basis that one member of the tribunal was disqualified.
Held: Certiorari did lie. Lord Denman CJ said: ‘the clause which takes away the certiorari does not preclude our exercising a superintendence over the proceedings, so far as to see that what is done shall be in pursuance of the statute. The statute cannot affect our right and duty to see justice executed; and, here, I am clearly of opinion that justice has not been executed.’

Lord Denman CJ
(1841) 3 QBD 467, [1841] EngR 582, (1841) 1 QB 466, (1841) 113 ER 1211
Commonlii
Cited by:
CitedCart and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Upper Tribunal and Others Admn 1-Dec-2009
The court was asked whether the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, exercisable by way of judicial review, extends to such decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) as are not amenable to any . .
CitedEvans and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Attorney General SC 26-Mar-2015
The Attorney General appealed against a decision for the release under the Act and Regulations of letters from HRH The Prince of Wales to various ministers and government departments.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority). The A-G had not been . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.222198

Dimes v Proprietors of Grand Junction Canal and others: HL 26 Jun 1852

The Lord Chancellor, Lord Cottenham, owned a substantial shareholding in the defendant canal which was an incorporated body. He sat on appeal from the Vice-Chancellor, whose judgment in favour of the company he affirmed. There was an appeal on the grounds that the Lord Chancellor was disqualified.
Held: After consultation, Lord Cottenham was disqualified from sitting as a judge in the cause because he had an interest in the suit. There was no inquiry by the court as to whether a reasonable man would consider Lord Cottenham to be biased and no inquiry as to the circumstances which led to Lord Cottenham sitting.
Lord Campbell said: ‘No one can suppose that Lord Cottenham could be, in the remotest degree, influenced by the interest he had in this concern; but, my Lords, it is of the last importance that the maxim that no man is to be a judge in his own cause should be held sacred. And that is not to be confined to a cause in which he is a party, but applies to a cause in which he has an interest. Since I have had the honour to be Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench, we have again and again set aside proceedings in inferior tribunals because an individual, who had an interest in a cause, took a part in the decision. And it will have a most salutary influence on these tribunals when it is known that this high Court of last resort, in a case in which the Lord Chancellor of England had an interest, considered that his decree was on that account a decree not according to law, and was set aside. This will be a lesson to all inferior tribunals to take care not only that in their decrees they are not influenced by their personal interest, but to avoid the appearance of labouring under such an influence.’

Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell
(1852) 3 HL Cas 759, [1852] EngR 789, (1852) 3 HLC 759, (1852) 10 ER 301
Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoDimes v The Company of Proprietors of The Grand Junction Canal CExC 1846
By a local Act of Parliament a company was incorporated and empowered to purchase certain lands ; and all persons seised, possessed of or interested in those lands were empowered to conveyed their right and interest therein to the company, in the . .
See AlsoThe Grand Junction Canal Company v Dimes 1-May-1849
In a suit in which an incorporated company were Plaintiffs, a decree was pronounced by the Vice-Chancellor for England, and was affirmed, on appeal, by the Lord Chancellor. It was afterwards discovered that the Lord Chancellor was a shareholder in . .
Appeal fromThe Grand Junction Canal Company v Dimes CA 4-Feb-1850
The defendant had been committed for the breach of an injunction which he believed had been unlawfully granted in that the Lord Chancellor, on appeal, had decided in favour of the plaintiff company in which he held shares. The defendant again . .
See AlsoDimes v Lord Cottenham 2-May-1850
The Court will not, on the application of the plaintiff, grant a trial at bar merely because the defendant is Lord Chancellor and the plaintiff an attorney of the Court. . .
See AlsoIn Re Dimes 26-Jul-1850
The claimant challenged his committal to prison saying that the order was invalid in that although made under an order of the Vice-Chancellor, the warrant had been endorsed with the letters CC.
Held: Such an endorsement did not mean that the . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) HL 15-Jan-1999
A petition was brought to request that a judgment of the House be set aside because the wife of one their lordships, Lord Hoffmann, was as an unpaid director of a subsidiary of Amnesty International which had in turn been involved in a campaign . .
CitedLocabail (UK) Ltd, Regina v Bayfield Properties Ltd CA 17-Nov-1999
Adverse Comments by Judge Need not be Show of Bias
In five cases, leave to appeal was sought on the basis that a party had been refused disqualification of judges on grounds of bias. The court considered the circumstances under which a fear of bias in a court may prove to be well founded: ‘The mere . .
CitedAl-Hasan, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Feb-2005
Prisoners were disciplined after refusing to be squat searched, saying that the procedure was humiliating and that there were no reasonable grounds to suspect them of any offence against prison discipline. The officer who had been involved in . .
CitedMeerabux v The Attorney General of Belize PC 23-Mar-2005
(Belize) The applicant complained at his removal as a justice of the Supreme Court, stating it was unconstitutional. The complaint had been decided by a member of the Bar Council which had also recommended his removal, and he said it had been . .
CitedIn Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 2); Director General of Fair Trading v Proprietary Association of Great Britain and Proprietary Articles Trade Association CA 21-Dec-2000
The claimants alleged that a connection between a member of the Restrictive Practices Court, who was to hear a complaint and another company, disclosed bias against them. She had not recused herself.
Held: When asking whether material . .
Principal JudgmentDimes v The Proprietors Of The Grand Junction Canal and Others 29-Jun-1852
The plaintiff had brought an action to recover land. His appeal failed, but the House later decided that the Lord Chancellor who heard the appeal should have disqualified himself, because he held shareholdings in the defendant company, and his . .
CitedKaur, Regina (on The Application of) v Institute of Legal Executives Appeal Tribunal and Another CA 19-Oct-2011
The claimant appealed against rejection of judicial review of a finding that she had effectively cheated at a professional examination for the Institute. She compained that the presence of a director and the council’s vice-president of the Institute . .
CitedP v The General Council of the Bar; Re P (A Barrister) 24-Jan-2005
(Visitors to the Inns of Court) A Disciplinary Tribunal was convened by the President of COIC pursuant to the 2000 Regulations. It found the barrister guilty of misconduct and suspended her from practice for three months. The Visitors appointed to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Natural Justice, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.183299

Attorney-General v Wilts United Dairies Ltd: HL 1922

The House heard an appeal by the Attorney-General against a finding that an imposition of duty on milk sales was unlawful.
Held: The appeal failed. The levy was unlawful. Lord Buckmaster said: ‘Neither of those two enactments enabled the Food Controller to levy any sum of money on any of his Majesty’s subjects. Drastic powers were given to him in regard to the regulation and control of the food supply, but they did not include the power to levy money, which he must receive as part of the national fund. However the character of the transaction might be defined, in the end it remained that people were called upon to pay money to the Controller for the exercise of certain privileges. That imposition could only be properly described as a tax, which could not be levied except by direct statutory means.’

Lord Buckmaster
(1922) 38 TLR 781
Bill of Rights 1688 4
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedGosling v Veley 1850
Wilde CJ said: ‘The rule of law that no pecuniary burden can be imposed upon the subjects of this country, by whatever name it may be called, whether tax, due, rate, or toll, except under clear and distinct legal authority, established by those who . .
Appeal fromAttorney-General v Wilts United Dairies Ltd CA 1921
The Food Controller had been given power under the Defence of the Realm Acts to regulate milk sales. In granting the dairy a licence to buy milk in Cornwall, Devon, Dorset and Somerset, the Food Controller required the Dairy to pay 2d. per imperial . .

Cited by:
CitedTotal Network Sl v Customs and Excise Commissioners CA 31-Jan-2007
The defendants suspected a carousel VAT fraud. The defendants appealed a finding that there was a viable cause of action alleging a ‘conspiracy where the unlawful means alleged is a common law offence of cheating the public revenue’. The defendants . .
CitedTotal Network Sl v Revenue and Customs HL 12-Mar-2008
The House was asked whether an action for unlawful means conspiracy was available against a participant in a missing trader intra-community, or carousel, fraud. The company appealed a finding of liability saying that the VAT Act and Regulations . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.248340

Lane v Esdaile: HL 5 May 1891

The court considered the extent of the House’s jurisdiction as an appellate court. Section 3 of the 1876 Act provided that an appeal should lie to the House of Lords from ‘any order or judgment of . . Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal in England’. The court of appeal had refused leave to appeal against an interlocutory order.
Held: The section clearly anticipated a range of matters in the Court of Appeal from which appeal would not lie, and ought to be construed to disallow frivolous appeals. A provision requiring the leave of a court to appeal will by necessary intendment exclude an appeal against the grant or refusal of leave, notwithstanding the general language of a statutory right of appeal against decisions of that court.
Lord Halsbury LC accepted that the words ‘order or judgment’ in section 3 were capable of including a decision to refuse leave. The question was whether such a construction could be reconciled with the terms and purpose of Ord LVIII r 15. At p 211, he said: ‘But when I look not only at the language used, but at the substance and meaning of the provision, it seems to me that to give an appeal in this case would defeat the whole object and purview of the order or rule itself, because it is obvious that what was there intended by the Legislature was that there should be in some form or other a power to stop an appeal – that there should not be an appeal unless some particular body pointed out by the statute (I will see in a moment what that body is), should permit that an appeal should be given. Now just let us consider what that means, that an appeal shall not be given unless some particular body consents to its being given. Surely if that is intended as a check to unnecessary or frivolous appeals it becomes absolutely illusory if you can appeal from that decision or leave, or whatever it is to be called itself. How could any Court of Review determine whether leave ought to be given or not without hearing and determining upon the hearing whether it was a fit case for an appeal? And if the intermediate Court could enter and must enter into that question, then the Court which is the ultimate Court of Appeal must do so also. The result of that would be that in construing this order, which as I have said is obviously intended to prevent frivolous and unnecessary appeals, you might in truth have two appeals in every case in which, following the ordinary course of things, there would be only one; because if there is a power to appeal when the order has been refused, it would seem to follow as a necessary consequence that you must have a right to appeal when leave has been granted, the result of which is that the person against whom the leave has been granted might appeal from that, and inasmuch as this is no stay of proceeding the Court of Appeal might be entertaining an appeal upon the very same question when this House was entertaining the question whether the Court of Appeal ought ever to have granted the appeal, My Lords, it seems to me that that would reduce the provision to such an absurdity that even if the language were more clear than is contended on the other side one really ought to give it a reasonable construction.’

Lord Halsbury LC
[1891] AC 210, [1891] UKHL 4
Bailii
Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 3
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham And Others, ex parte Burkett and Another HL 23-May-2002
The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent’s grant of planning permission for a development which would affect her. The authority objected that the application was made after three months after their decision, and so leave should not be . .
AppliedIn re Housing of the Working Classes Act 1890, Ex parte Stevenson CA 1892
A party had applied to a judge for what in effect amounted to leave to appeal and had been refused.
Held: Wherever power is given to a legal authority to grant or refuse leave to appeal, the decision of that authority is, from the very nature . .
ExplainedKemper Reinsurance Company v The Minister of Finance and others PC 5-May-1998
(Bermuda) An appeal Court did have jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the discharge of leave to apply for certiorari order, since this was outside scope of the rule in Lane v Esdaille.
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘Nevertheless, the limited nature . .
CitedDhillon v Secretary of State for the Home Department CACD 1988
The court considered the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to hear certain appeals, saying that ‘Lane v. Esdaile is of general application and provides that where leave to bring proceedings is required it is not possible to appeal against a . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Turkoglu CA 1987
The applicant had been granted bail by a High Court judge when he was given leave to apply for judicial review of the decision refusing him leave to enter the United Kingdom. His application for judicial review was subsequently dismissed and the . .
CitedRickards v Rickards CA 20-Jun-1989
What Lane v. Esdaile decided, and all that it decided, was that where it is provided that an appeal shall lie by leave of a particular court or courts, neither the grant nor refusal of leave is an appealable decision. The Court of Appeal could . .
CitedGeogas SA v Trammo Gas Ltd (The Baleares) HL 1991
Charterers had appealed an arbitration award. The judge set it aside. The CA gave leave and allowed the appeal saying that as a question of mixed fact and law sought leave to appeal against an arbitration award.
Held: The House had no . .
CitedIn re Poh HL 1983
The applicant had unsuccessfully applied to the Divisional Court for leave to apply for judicial review and renewed his application, equally unsuccessfully, to the Court of Appeal. He then petitioned for leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
CitedRoche v The United Kingdom ECHR 19-Oct-2005
(Grand Chamber) The claimant had been exposed to harmful chemicals whilst in the Army at Porton Down in 1953. He had wished to claim a service pension on the basis of the ensuing personal injury, but had been frustrated by many years of the . .
CitedSinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v The Lands Tribunal CA 8-Nov-2005
The claimant appealed against a refusal of judicial review of a decision of the Lands Tribunal.
Held: A decision of the Lands Tribunal could only be judicially reviewed in exceptional cases where there was either a jurisdictional error or a . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex Parte Eastaway HL 8-Nov-2000
Where the Court of Appeal had refused permission to apply for judicial review after a similar refusal by a judge, that decision was also, by implication, a refusal to grant permission to appeal against the judge’s decision, and there was no scope . .
CitedWalsall Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government CA 6-Feb-2013
The Council sought permission to appeal against the setting aside of two enforcement notices, leave having been refused by the Administrative court. The court now considered whether it had jusridiction, and whether the rule in Lane v Esdaile was to . .
CitedHuggett v Secretary of State for the Environment Etc; Wendy Fair Markets Ltd v Same; Bello v Etc CA 1-Mar-1995
There is no power for Court of Appeal itself to give leave to appeal after High Court’s refusal of leave on an enforcement notice. The court rejected the applicant’s submission that a High Court judge’s decision refusing permission to appeal under . .
CitedSarfraz v Disclosure and Barring Service CA 22-May-2015
The claimant appealed against the refusal of the defendant to remove his name from the list of those barred from working with children. He had been a GP. Though not priosecuted for any criminal offence the Professional Conduct Committee had found . .
CitedCampbell v The Queen PC 3-Nov-2010
(Court of Appeal of Jamaica) The defendant had been convicted of murder and his applications for leave to appeal against conviction were refused. He applied to the Privy Council for special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.182907

Conway v Rimmer: HL 28 Feb 1968

Crown Privilege for Documents held by the Polie

The plaintiff probationary police constable had been investigated, prosecuted and cleared of an allegation of theft. He now claimed damages for malicious prosecution, and in the course of the action, sought disclosure of five documents, but these were withheld on the ground of Crown privilege. The House considered that claim as to civil actions of documents and information in the hands of the police.
Held: The courts will give great weight to preserving the confidentiality of tax documents in the hands of the Revenue.
Lord Reid said: ‘The police are carrying on an unending war with criminals many of whom are today highly intelligent. So it is essential that there should be no disclosure of anything which might give any useful information to those who organise criminal activities.’ However: ‘I would therefore propose that the House ought now to decide that courts have and are entitled to exercise a power and duty to hold a balance between the public interest, as expressed by a Minister, to withhold certain documents or other evidence, and the public interest in ensuring the proper administration of justice. That does not mean that a court would reject a Minister’s view: full weight must be given to it in every case, and if the Minister’s reasons are of a character which judicial experience is not competent to weigh, then the Minister’s view must prevail. But experience has shown that reasons given for withholding whole classes of documents are often not of that character. For example a court is perfectly well able to assess the likelihood that, if the writer of a certain class of document knew that there was a chance that his report might be produced in legal proceedings, he would make a less full and candid report than he would otherwise have done. I do not doubt that there are certain classes of documents which ought not to be disclosed whatever their content may be. Virtually everyone agrees that Cabinet minutes and the like ought not to be disclosed until such time as they are only of historical interest. But I do not think that many people would give as the reason that premature disclosure would prevent candour in the Cabinet. To my mind the most important reason is that such disclosure would create or fan ill-informed or captious public or political criticism.’
As to the different positions of the law in Scotland and England, Lord Reid said: ‘But here we are dealing purely with public policy – with the proper relation between the powers of the executive and the powers of the courts – and I can see no rational justification for the law on this matter being different in the two countries.’

Lord Reid Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Hodson, Lord Pearce, Lord Upjohn
[1968] AC 910, [1968] 2 WLR 998, [1968] 1 All ER 874, [1968] UKHL 2
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedDuncan v Cammell, Laird and Company Limited (Discovery) HL 27-Apr-1942
Relatives of deceased seamen claimed damages against the defendants after their husbands were lost a sea in a submarine built by the defendants. The Ministry of Defence instructed the defendants not to disclose any details of the boat’s . .
CitedMackalley’s case 1611
If an officer or magistrate is killed when executing a process or preserving the peace, the offence is murder and remains so even if there is some defect in the process being executed, or the arrest was being made at night.
Constables were . .
CitedFisher v Oldham Corporation KBD 1930
On Officer was subject to a claim for false imprisonment on an unlawful arrest, and it was asserted that the Watch Committee of the local authority were vicariously liable. The plaintiff pointed to his Oath of Office: ‘I . . . . . . . . . of . . . . . .

Cited by:
CitedLonrho Plc v Fayed and Others (No 4 ) CA 27-Oct-1993
Public interest immunity does not attach to documents in the hands of a taxpayer and his advisers. They are not in any event discloseable. (Bingham) ‘a claim made by the revenue to withhold documents relating to a taxpayer’s tax affairs from . .
CitedHome Office v Hariette Harman HL 11-Feb-1982
The defendant had permitted a journalist to see documents revealed to her as in her capacity as a solicitor in the course of proceedings.
Held: The documents were disclosed under an obligation to use them for the instant case only. That rule . .
CitedReclaiming Motion In Petition of Scott Davidson for Judicial Review of A Decision To Continue To Detain the Prisoner In Inhuman and Degrading Prison C SCS 18-Dec-2001
A prisoner sought an order for his removal from a prison found to have a regime which breached his human rights. The Crown replied that an order could not be made under s21 of the 1947 Act.
Held: The prisoner had followed through his rights to . .
CitedMohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 4) Admn 4-Feb-2009
In an earlier judgment, redactions had been made relating to reports by the US government of its treatment of the claimant when held by them at Guantanamo bay. The claimant said he had been tortured and sought the documents to support his defence of . .
CitedAl Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others QBD 18-Nov-2009
The claimants sought damages from the defendants saying that they had been held and ill treated at various detention centres by foreign authorities, but with the involvement of the defendants. The defendants sought to bring evidence before the court . .
CitedAl Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others CA 4-May-2010
Each claimant had been captured and mistreated by the US government, and claimed the involvement in and responsibility for that mistreatment by the respondents. The court was asked whether a court in England and Wales, in the absence of statutory . .
CitedRegina v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex parte Rossminster Ltd HL 13-Dec-1979
The House considered the power of an officer of the Board of Inland Revenue to seize and remove materials found on premises which a warrant obtained on application to the Common Serjeant authorised him to enter and search; but where the source of . .
CitedScience Research Council v Nasse; BL Cars Ltd (formerly Leyland Cars) v Voias HL 1-Nov-1979
Recent statutes had given redress to anyone suffering unlawful discrimination on account of race sex or trade union activities. An employee sought discovery of documents from his employer which might reveal such discrimination.
Held: The court . .
CitedAl Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others SC 13-Jul-2011
The claimant pursued a civil claim for damages, alleging complicity of the respondent in his torture whilst in the custody of foreign powers. The respondent sought that certain materials be available to the court alone and not to the claimant or the . .
CitedArias and Others v Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police and Another CA 1-Aug-1984
A police officer searched premises under a warrant seizing documents of a trust corporation managed by the occupier. The trustees sought return of the documents or, alternatively, copies of them. The police believed that the documents were evidence . .
CitedAndrew v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis ChD 18-Mar-2011
The claimant sought unredacted disclosure of documents by the second defendant so that he could pursue an action against the first, who, he said, were thought to have intercepted his mobile phone messages, and where the second defendant had . .
CitedIn re A (A Child) SC 12-Dec-2012
A woman, X, had made an allegation in confidence she had been sexually assaulted as a child. The court was asked whether that confidence could be overriden to allow an investigation to protect if necessary a child still living with the man. Evidence . .
CitedRegina v Lewes Justices ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department; Rogers v Home Secretary HL 1972
The House considered a claim for public interest immunity.
Held: Lord Simon of Glaisdale said: ‘the public interest which demands that the evidence be withheld has to be weighed against the public interest in the administration of justice that . .
CitedHaralambous, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Court at St Albans and Another SC 24-Jan-2018
The appellant challenged by review the use of closed material first in the issue of a search warrant, and subsequently to justify the retention of materials removed during the search.
Held: The appeal failed. No express statutory justification . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management, Constitutional, Police, Litigation Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.184570

Regina v Sheer Metalcraft Ltd: 1954

The defendant company was charged with purchasing sheet metals at prices in excess of those permitted by Order. The defendant complained that the Order had been printed without the Schedules, but the Secretary of State had not given the necessary certificate to exempt the Schedule.
Held: The Statutory Instrument took effect after being made by the Minister and laid before Parliament. The omission of the certificate was a matter of procedure and did not invalidate the Order. However the burden of evidence was on the Crown to establish that at the time of the alleged contravention reasonable steps had been taken to bring the Order to those affected by it.

[1954] QB 586, [1954] 1 All ER 542, [1954] 1 QB 586, [1954] 2 WLR 777, (1954) 118 JP 190, (1954) 98 Sol Jo 253
Iron and Steel Process Order 1951, Statutory Instruments Act 1946
England and Wales

Crime, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.539329

Flaminio Costa v ENEL (Procedure): ECJ 15 Jul 1964

‘The transfer by the states from their domestic legal system to the Community legal system of their rights and obligations arising under the Treaty carries with it a permanent limitation of their sovereign rights, against which a subsequent unilateral act incompatible with the concept of the Community cannot prevail . .’
ECJ 1. In the context of requests for preliminary rulings, the court has no jurisdiction either to apply the treaty to a specific case or to decide upon the validity of a provision of domestic law in relation to the treaty, as it would be possible for it to do under article 169. Nevertheless, the court has power to extract from a question imperfectly formulated by the national court those questions which alone pertain to the interpretation of the treaty.
2. Article 177 is based upon a clear separation of functions between national courts and the court of justice and cannot empower the latter either to investigate the facts of the case or to criticize the grounds and purpose of the request for interpretation.
3. By contrast with ordinary international treaties, the eec treaty has created its own legal system which, on the entry into force of the treaty, became an integral part of the legal systems of the member states and which their courts are bound to apply.
By creating a community of unlimited duration, having its own institutions, its own personality, its own legal capacity and capacity of representation on the international plane and, more particularly, real powers stemming from a limitation of sovereignty or a transfer of powers from the states to the community, the member states have limited their sovereign rights and have thus created a body of law which binds both their nationals and themselves.
The integration into the laws of each member state of provisions which derive from the community and more generally the terms and the spirit of the treaty, make it impossible for the states, as a corollary, to accord precedence to a unilateral and subsequent measure over a legal system accepted by them on a basis of reciprocity. Such a measure cannot therefore be inconsistent with that legal system. The law stemming from the treaty, an independent source of law, could not because of its special and original nature, be overridden by domestic legal provisions, however framed, without being deprived of its character as community law and without the legal basis of the community itself being called into question.
The transfer by the states from their domestic legal system to the community legal system of the rights and obligations arising under the treaty carries with it a permanent limitation of their sovereign rights.
4. The commission has the duty of seeing that the member states respect those obligations which have been imposed upon them by the treaty and which bind them as states without creating individual rights, but this obligation on the part of the commission does not give individuals the right to allege, in community law or under article 177, either failure by the state concerned to fulfil any of its obligations or breach of duty on the part of the commission.
5. Article 102 of the eec treaty contains no provisions which are capable of creating individual rights which national courts must protect.
6. Article 93 of the eec treaty contains no provisions which are capable of creating individual rights which national courts must protect.
7. A member state’s obligation under the eec treaty, which is neither subject to any conditions nor, as regards its execution or effect, to the adoption of any measure either by the states or by the commission, is legally complete and consequently capable of producing direct effects on the relations between member states and individuals. Such an obligation becomes an integral part of the legal system of the member states, and thus forms part of their own law, and directly concerns their nationals in whose favour it has created individual rights which national courts must protect.
8. Article 53 of the eec treaty constitutes a community rule capable of creating individual rights which national courts must protect.
9. Article 53 of the eec treaty is satisfied so long as no new measure subjects the establishment of nationals of other member states to more severe rules than those prescribed for nationals of the country of establishment, whatever the legal system governing the undertakings.
10. Article 37 ( 2 ) of the eec treaty constitutes in all its provisions a rule of community law capable of creating individual rights which national courts must protect.
11. The provisions of article 37 ( 2 ) of the eec treaty have as their object the prohibition of any new measure contrary to the principles of article 37 ( 1 ), that is any measure having as its object or effect a new discrimination between nationals of member states regarding the conditions in which goods are procured and marketed, by means of monopolies or bodies wich must, first, have as their object transactions regarding a commercial product capable of being the subject of competition and trade between member states, and secondly must play an effective part in such trade.
It is a matter for the court dealing with the main action to assess in each case whether the economic activity under review relates to such a product which, by virtue of its nature and the technical or international conditions to which it is subject, is capable of playing such a part in imports or exports between nationals of the member states.
LMA The case involved a conflict between a number of Treaty provisions, and an Italian statute nationalising the electricity company of which Signor Costa was a shareholder. But here the Italian law was later in time. On being brought before the Milan tribunal for refusing to pay his bill (about andpound;110p.) Signor Costa argued that the company was in breach of EC Law. The company argued ‘lex posterior’ the Italian Act nationalising the electricity company was later in time than the Italian Ratification Act, the act incorporating EC law therefore it took priority. The Italian Court referred this question of priorities to the ECJ. The principle of supremacy of EC law was clearly affirmed by the ECJ. The Court went on to say ‘The transfer, by MS, from their national orders in favour of the Community order of rights and obligations arising from the Treaty, carries a clear limitation of their sovereign right upon which a subsequent unilateral law, incompatible with the aims of the Community cannot prevail’

C-6/64, (1964) CMLR 425, [1964] ECR 585, R-6/64, [1964] EUECJ R-6/64, [1964] EUECJ C-6/64
Bailii, Bailii
European
Citing:
OrderCosta v ENEL (Order) ECJ 3-Jun-1964
. .

Cited by:
CitedOakley Inc v Animal Ltd and others PatC 17-Feb-2005
A design for sunglasses was challenged for prior publication. However the law in England differed from that apparently imposed from Europe as to the existence of a 12 month period of grace before applying for registration.
Held: Instruments . .
CitedMiller and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Exiting The European Union SC 24-Jan-2017
Parliament’s Approval if statute rights affected
In a referendum, the people had voted to leave the European Union. That would require a notice to the Union under Article 50 TEU. The Secretary of State appealed against an order requiring Parliamentary approval before issuing the notice, he saying . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.214025

Patriciello (Privileges And Immunities): ECJ 9 Jun 2011

ECJ Member of the European Parliament – Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities – Scope of the concept of’opinion expressed in the exercise of parliamentary duties’ – Criminal proceedings for the crime of false accusation – Immunity material – a behavior MEP outside the precincts of Parliament – link organic.
While Article 8 is intended to apply to statements made by MEPs within the very precincts of the European Parliament, it is not impossible that a statement made by an MEP outside the precincts may amount to an opinion expressed in the performance of their duties within Art 8 because this depends on the character and content of the opinion rather than the place where it was made. However there must be a ‘direct and obvious connection between the opinion expressed and the parliamentary duties and a statement made outside the precincts of the Parliament: ‘does not constitute an opinion expressed in the performance of his parliamentary duties covered by the immunity afforded by that provision unless that statement amounts to a subjective appraisal having a direct, obvious connection with the performance of those duties . .’
[2012] 1 CMLR 11, C-163/10, [2011] EUECJ C-163/10
Bailii
European
Cited by:
CitedBarron and Others v Collins QBD 16-May-2016
The defendant MEP sought an order staying the defamation action brought against her by four MPs from the Rotherham area. She said that as an MEP she had a procedural immunity. She had informed the European Commission that she sought the protection . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.440760

F Hoffmann La Roche and Co A G v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: HL 1975

No Indemnity for misadministration

The Secretary of State sought an interlocutory injunction under the Act to restrain the appellant from charging prices in excess of those fixed by a statutory instrument he had made. The appellant argued that the statutory instrument was ultra vires, because it had been based upon a report by the Monopolies Commission, which the appellant maintained, had been produced without due regard to principles of natural justice. The Secretary of State objected to giving a cross undertaking in damages.
Held: The Secretary of State was not required to give such an undertaking. Lord Reid said that normally a claimant ‘cannot be compelled to give an undertaking but if he will not give it he will not get the injunction.’
The fact that an individual has suffered loss because of an invalid administrative act does not in itself entitle him to be indemnified.
Lord Diplock said: ‘The court has no power to compel an applicant for an interim injunction to furnish an undertaking as to damages.’ and ‘The undertaking is not given to the defendant but to the court itself. Non-performance of it is contempt of court, not breach of contract, and attracts the remedies available for contempts, but the court exacts the undertaking for the defendant’s benefit. It retains a discretion not to enforce the undertaking if it considers that the conduct of the defendant in relation to the obtaining or continuing of the injunction or the enforcement of the undertaking makes it inequitable to do so, but if the undertaking is enforced the measure of the damages payable under it is not discretionary. It is assessed on an inquiry into damages at which principles to be applied are fixed and clear. The assessment is made upon the same basis as that upon which damages for breach of contract would be assessed if the undertaking had been a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant that the plaintiff would not prevent the defendant from doing that which he was restrained from doing by the terms of the injunction.’
. . ‘In constitutional law a clear distinction can be drawn between an Act of Parliament and subordinate legislation, even though the latter is contained in an order made by statutory instrument approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament. Despite this indication that the majority of members of both Houses of the contemporary Parliament regard the order as being for the common weal, I entertain no doubt that the courts have jurisdiction to declare it to be invalid if they are satisfied that in making it the Minister who did so acted outwith the legislative powers conferred upon him by the previous Act of Parliament under which the order is ultra vires by reason of its contents (patent defects) or by reason of defects in the procedure followed prior to its being made (latent defects).’
Lord Diplock, Lord Reid, Lord Wilberforce
[1975] AC 295, [1974] 2 All ER 1128, [1974] 3 WLR 104
Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry Control) Act 1948 11(2), Monopolies and Mergers Act 1965
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedBoddington v British Transport Police HL 2-Apr-1998
The defendant had been convicted, under regulations made under the Act, of smoking in a railway carriage. He sought to challenge the validity of the regulations themselves. He wanted to argue that the power to ban smoking on carriages did not . .
CitedBugg v Director of Public Prosecutions; Director of Public Prosecutions v Percy QBD 1993
The defendants appealed against convictions for having entered military bases contrary to various bye-laws. They challenged the validity of the bye-laws.
Held: The validity of a bye-law could be challenged in criminal proceedings, but where . .
CitedSmithkline Beecham Plc and others v Apotex Europe Ltd and others PatC 26-Jul-2005
Application was made to join in further parties to support a cross undertaking on being made subject to interim injunctions.
Held: On orders other than asset freezing orders it was not open to the court to impose cross-undertakings against . .
CitedSmithkline Beecham Plc Glaxosmithkline UK Ltd and Another v Apotex Europe Ltd and others (No 2) CA 23-May-2006
The parties to the action had given cross undertakings to support the grant of an interim injunction. A third party subsequently applied to be joined, and now sought to take advantage of the cross undertakings to claim the losses incurred through . .
CitedSomerville v Scottish Ministers HL 24-Oct-2007
The claimants complained of their segregation while in prison. Several preliminary questions were to be decided: whether damages might be payable for breach of a Convention Right; wheher the act of a prison governor was the act of the executive; . .
CitedBank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC 19-Jun-2013
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .
CitedThe Public Law Project, Regina (on The Application of) v Lord Chancellor SC 13-Jul-2016
Proposed changes to the Legal Aid regulations were challenged as being invalid, for being discriminatory. If regulations are not authorised under statute, they will be invalid, even if they have been approved by resolutions of both Houses under the . .
CitedMajera, Regina (on The Application of v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 20-Oct-2021
The Court was asked whether the Government (or, indeed, anyone else) can lawfully act in a manner which is inconsistent with an order of a judge which is defective, without first applying for, and obtaining, the variation or setting aside of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.187068

Rex v Eliot, Hollis and Valentine: 1629

Proceedings were taken in the King’s Bench against three members of the House of Commons, who were charged with seditious speeches, contempt of the King (Charles I) in resisting the adjournment of the House and with conspiracy to keep the Speaker in the chair by force. All pleaded to the jurisdiction. The plea nihil dicit meant that conviction would be inevitable, but if they defended themselves at all, their contention that Parliament was the only body with jurisdiction over these matters would be totally undermined. Eliot’s self-acknowledged dilemma was that if he did not submit he would incur the censure of the Court, but if he did, his act would be considered ‘a prejudice to posterity’ and ‘a danger to Parliament’. So he would be silent, just because his duty was to Parliament.
Held: Members had no privilege to speak seditiously or behave in a disorderly manner.
(1629) 3 St Tr 294
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoRex v Eliot, Holles and Valentine 1629
Parliamentary privilege did not protect the maker against seditious comments made in the Chamber of the House. . .

Cited by:
CitedPrebble v Television New Zealand Ltd PC 27-Jun-1994
(New Zealand) The plaintiff, an MP, pursued a defamation case. The defendant wished to argue for the truth of what was said, and sought to base his argument on things said in Parliament. The plaintiff responded that this would be a breach of . .
CitedChaytor and Others, Regina v CACD 30-Jul-2010
The defendants had been members of the Houses of Commons and of Lords. They faced charges of dishonesty in respect of their expenses claims. They now appealed a finding that they were not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament under . .
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 . .
CitedKimathi and Others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office QBD 20-Dec-2017
Parliamentary privilege The claimants sought to have admitted as evidence extracts from Hansard in support of their claim for damages arising from historic claims.
Held: The court set out the authorities and made orders as to each element. . .
CitedKimathi and Others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office QBD 20-Dec-2017
Parliamentary privilege The claimants sought to have admitted as evidence extracts from Hansard in support of their claim for damages arising from historic claims.
Held: The court set out the authorities and made orders as to each element. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 October 2021; Ref: scu.409974

Rex v Eliot, Holles and Valentine: 1629

Parliamentary privilege did not protect the maker against seditious comments made in the Chamber of the House.
(1629) 3 St Tr 293
England and Wales
Cited by:
See AlsoRex v Eliot, Hollis and Valentine 1629
Proceedings were taken in the King’s Bench against three members of the House of Commons, who were charged with seditious speeches, contempt of the King (Charles I) in resisting the adjournment of the House and with conspiracy to keep the Speaker in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 October 2021; Ref: scu.427744

Harding v Attorney General of Anguilla: PC 30 Jul 2018

(Anguilla) Mrs Harding claims that she was removed from office before the expiry of her final term in breach of the Constitution of Anguilla, and that she had a legitimate expectation of reappointment which was violated by the failure to reappoint her.
Lord Reed, Lord Kerr, Lord Sumption, Lord Hodge, Lord Briggs
[2018] UKPC 22
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 18 October 2021; Ref: scu.621121

Onesearch Direct Holdings Ltd (T/A Onesearch Direct) v City of York Council: Admn 19 Mar 2010

The court considered the conditions under which the respondent authority replied to all enquiries as to properties within its area. The replies were given by a standardised all inclusive information sheet derived from a central database. The authority would not allow either access to the raw data, nor provide piecemeal responses. The claimant argued that the statutory background implied a duty to allow access to the raw data.
Held: While a court can interpret a statute merely authorising an authority to take an action as imposing a duty where a failure to act would frustrate the purpose of the Act, it was not as clear that a similar interpretation could be imposed to support a different statute. The background information to the 2004 Act clearly anticipated authorities allowing access to the raw data, preferring initially a voluntary approach. That preference undermined an interpretation imposing an obligation, and there was in fact no obligation imposed on the council to allow access to the raw data.
Hickinbottom J
[2010] EWHC 590 (Admin)
Bailii
Local Government Act 1972, Local Government Act 2000 2, Local Authorities (Charges for Land Searches) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994 No 1885) 2
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedPadfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food HL 14-Feb-1968
Exercise of Ministerial Discretion
The Minister had power to direct an investigation in respect of any complaint as to the operation of any marketing scheme for agricultural produce. Milk producers complained about the price paid by the milk marketing board for their milk when . .
CitedThe Sussex Peerage Case 1844
Statements against penal interest are outside the common law exception of statements against interest. The oral confession of a deceased person was considered.
The court considered principles of statutory interpretation: ‘Acts should be . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 September 2021; Ref: scu.403378

The Queen v Walter Watson Hughes And Edward Stirling: PC 22 Dec 1865

Leases granted by the Governor of South Australia under powers conferred on him by the Colonial Act, 21st Vict. No. 5, sec. 13, for regulating the sale and other disposal of waste lands belonging to the Crown, sealed with the public seal of the Province, but not enrolled or recorded in any court, are not in themselves Records; and, though bad on the face of them, being for a larger quantity of land than allowed by that Act, cannot be annulled or quashed by a writ of Scire facias
[1865] EngR 794, (1865) 3 Moo PC NS 439, (1865) 16 ER 166, [1866] UKPC 3, LR 1 PC 81
Commonlii, Bailii
Australia

Updated: 15 July 2021; Ref: scu.281706

John Wilkes, Esq v The King: HL 1768

Mr Wilkes had been accused of making a seditious libel against the King. He had peaded not guilty, but then absconded after his conviction, but before his sentence.
[1768] EngR 2, (1768) Wilm 322, (1768) 97 ER 123
Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoWilkes v Wood CCP 6-Dec-1763
Entry by Force was Unconstitutional
The plaintiff challenged a warrant of commitment to the Tower of London addressed to John Wilkes by name. The plaintiff sought damages after his property was entered by force on behalf of the Secretary of State.
Held: The case was decided on a . .

Cited by:
See AlsoRex v John Wilkes, Esq 7-Feb-1770
The law must be applied even if the heavens fell
An information for a misdemeanor may be amended the day before trial by a single Judge at chambers on hearing both sides and without the consent of the defendant.
On setting aside John Wilkes’ outlawry for publishing The North Briton, Lord . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 June 2021; Ref: scu.374591

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Quinn: QBD 26 May 1999

A prisoner charged with a prison mutiny was moved to a prison, where one of the officers now worked. He feared reprisals, and that his trial would be unfair. The right to a fair trial is constitutional, but no real danger was shown here.
Gazette 26-May-1999
England and Wales

Updated: 01 June 2021; Ref: scu.87937

Evans, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Attorney General and Another: Admn 9 Jul 2013

The claimant had requested disclosure of correspondence between Prince Charles and assorted government departments. It had been refused, the Attorney General issuing a certificate under section 53(2) after the Upper tribunal had allowed the claimant’s appeal from an initial refusal, stating that he had, on reasonable grounds, formed the opinion that the Departments had been entitled to refuse disclosure of the letters, and set out his reasoning.
Held: The claim for judicial review failed. Section 53 of the Act was an unusual provision giving an executive override or veto of what (in the case of tribunal and court conclusions) would have been a judicial decision. However the language of the section required there to be reasonable grounds for the certifcate, stated cogently and judged objectively. That statutory test should not be glossed with any Wednesbury style test, and nor was the court to substitute its own assessment for that of the minister. ‘Reasonable grounds’ in section 53(2) simply meant grounds which, when viewed on their own, were ‘cogent’, and there was no reason to constrain the expression to exclude the accountable person from forming his own view simply because it differed from that of a court or tribunal.
Lord Judge LCJ, Davis LJ, Globe J
[2013] EWHC 1960 (Admin), [2013] 3 WLR 1631, [2013] WLR(D) 313, [2014] 1 CMLR 8, [2014] 1 All ER 23
Bailii, WLRD
Freedom of Information Act 2000 53, Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3391)
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoEvans v Information Commissioner UTAA 18-Sep-2012
The claimant journalist had requested copies of correspondence between Prince Charles and assorted public bodies.
Held: ‘The Upper Tribunal allows the appeals by Mr Evans. A further decision identifying information to be disclosed to Mr Evans, . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromEvans, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Attorney General and Another CA 12-Mar-2014
The claimant journalist had requested disclosure under the 2000 Act of correspondence between the Prince of Wales and government departments. The Upper Tribunal had found that matters where the prince had acted as advocate were disclosable. . .
Appeal fromEvans v The Information Commissioner and Others CA 12-Mar-2014
Mr Evans had sought release under the 2000 Act of leers from the Prince of Wales to variou government ministers. The Upper Tribunal had allowed his appeal aganst refusal, but the Attorney had then issued a certificate that in his opinion, the . .
At AdmnEvans and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Attorney General SC 26-Mar-2015
The Attorney General appealed against a decision for the release under the Act and Regulations of letters from HRH The Prince of Wales to various ministers and government departments.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority). The A-G had not been . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 May 2021; Ref: scu.512206

Lincoln Anthony Guerra v Cipriani Baptiste and others (No 2): PC 6 Nov 1995

(Trinidad and Tobago) The execution of a prisoner after a substantial delay of 5 years was a breach of his constitutional rights, constituting cruel and unusual punishment.
Times 08-Nov-1995, Independent 15-Nov-1995, [1995] UKPC 3, Appeal No 11 of 1995, [1996] 1 A C 397
Bailii, PC
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedPratt and Morgan v The Attorney General for Jamaica and Another PC 2-Nov-1993
(Jamaica) A five year delay in execution is excessive, and can itself amount to inhuman or degrading punishment. ‘There is an instinctive revulsion against the prospect of hanging a man after he has been held under sentence of death for many years. . .

Cited by:
CitedTrevor Nathaniel Fisher v The Minister of Public Safety and Immigration and Others PC 16-Dec-1997
(The Bahamas) The extent of a delay before a trial is not relevant when considering whether a subsequent delay in carrying out an execution is cruel and inhuman punishment . .
CitedReyes v The Queen PC 11-Mar-2002
(Belize) The Criminal Code of Belize provided that any murder by shooting was to be treated as Class A Murder, and be subject to the mandatory death penalty. The applicant having been convicted, appealed saying this was inhuman or degrading . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 May 2021; Ref: scu.81077

Regina v Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards Ex Parte Al-Fayed: CA 5 Nov 1997

The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards had published a report relating to a complaint by the applicant against a Member of Parliament.
Held: The applicant sought permission to challenge this by judicial review. The applicant’s appeal failed. No judicial review was possible of the workings of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards despite the absence of any Appeal from his findings. To allow a judicial review would be to impugn the House of Commons. Lord Woolf MR said: ‘Activities of government are the basic fare of judicial review. Activities of Parliament are not the basic fare of judicial review. Indeed activities of Parliament are accepted in general by Mr. Pannick to be not subject to judicial review. If I may put it this way, if what was being sought here was judicial review of the Standing Committee responsible for supervising the activities of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Mr. Pannick would accept that judicial review was not available.’ and ‘The focus of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is on the propriety of the workings and the activities of those engaged within Parliament. He is one of the means by which the select committee set up by the House carries out its functions, which are accepted to be part of the proceedings of the House. This being the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, it would be inappropriate for this court to use its supervisory powers to control what the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards does in relation to an investigation of this sort. The responsibility for supervising the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is placed by Parliament, through its standing orders, on the Committee of Standards and Privileges of the House, and it is for that body to perform that role and not the courts.’
Lord Woolf MR
Gazette 05-Nov-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2488, [1998] 1 WLR 669, [1998] 1 All ER 93
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedHamilton v Al Fayed HL 23-Mar-2000
The claimant MP sued the defendant in defamation after he had alleged that the MP had corruptly solicited and received payments and benefits in kind as a reward for parliamentary services rendered.
Held: Parliament has protected by privilege . .
CitedChaytor and Others, Regina v CACD 30-Jul-2010
The defendants had been members of the Houses of Commons and of Lords. They faced charges of dishonesty in respect of their expenses claims. They now appealed a finding that they were not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament under . .
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 April 2021; Ref: scu.87524

Case XLIX 5 and 6 E6: 1220

An Act of Parliament not printed, ordains, that the quarter-sessions to be held for the county of Anglesey, shall he held at Beaumarrice in that county, and not elsewhere ; indictments of felony were found at Newburgh in the said county against several persons at a quarter-sessions held there after the said act; the justices of peace proceeded to take the said indictment although the said act was shewed to them, exemplified under the great seal, before the indictments were found : resolved for law, by all the judges, that these indictnents were void; by reason of the said negative words : and this offence being complained of in the Star-chamber, every one of those justices of peace was fined 5l. Note the moderation of that age in settirig fines in that court. The 25 H. 8, cap. 21, has negative words, that dispensations for benefices shall be granted by the Archibishop of Canterbury, and not otherwise : yet the King’s power is not excluded ; for, by those negative words, it is only intended to exclude all papal dispensations.
Affirmative words in a statute do not take away the common law. The justices of peace may hold their quarter-sessions where they think fit in the county, if they are not restrained as above.
6 E 6 1 Cr 275 3 Mar Dyer, [1220] EngR 550, (1220-1623) Jenk 212, (1220) 145 ER 144 (C)
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 19 April 2021; Ref: scu.461462

Gibraltar v Council: ECJ 29 Jun 1993

(Judgment) European Community jurisdiction on Gibraltar Airport dispute must await UK-Spain agreement.
ECJ Article 2(2) of Directive 89/463 concerning the authorization of scheduled inter-regional air services for the transport of passengers, mail and cargo between Member States, which suspends the application of that directive to Gibraltar airport until the cooperation arrangements for that airport agreed between the Governments of the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom come into operation, cannot be regarded as constituting a decision within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, so that an action for its annulment brought by a natural or legal person is inadmissible.
Where an instrument contains limitations or derogations which are temporary or territorial in nature, they form an integral part of the provisions as a whole within which they are found and, in the absence of any misuse of powers, are of the same general nature as those provisions. The suspension by the said article of the application of the directive, which is itself of general application, affects equally all air carriers wishing to operate a direct inter-regional air service between another Community airport and Gibraltar airport and, more generally, all those using the latter airport. Furthermore, apart from the fact that Gibraltar airport is not the only airport to have been temporarily excluded from the scheme of the directive, the said suspension merely reflects the consequences of the existence of an objective obstacle, arising from differences between two Member States, to the immediate application of the directive to Gibraltar airport.
Times 09-Jul-1993, C-298/89, [1993] EUECJ C-298/89, [1993] ECR I-3605
Bailii
European

Updated: 15 April 2021; Ref: scu.160346

Unison, Regina (on The Application of) v Lord Chancellor: SC 26 Jul 2017

The union appellant challenged the validity of the imposition of fees on those seeking to lay complaints in the Employment Tribunal system.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The fees were discriminatory and restricted access to justice.
The consequence of the order had been very substantially to reduce the number of cases coming before the tribunal, and: ‘The fall in the number of claims has in any event been so sharp, so substantial, and so sustained as to warrant the conclusion that a significant number of people who would otherwise have brought claims have found the fees to be unaffordable . . the Fees Order effectively prevents access to justice, and is therefore unlawful.’
The idea that bringing a claim before a court or a tribunal is a purely private activity, and the related idea that such claims provide no broader social benefit, are demonstrably untenable: ‘At the heart of the concept of the rule of law is the idea that society is governed by law. Parliament exists primarily in order to make laws for society in this country. Democratic procedures exist primarily in order to ensure that the Parliament which makes those laws includes Members of Parliament who are chosen by the people of this country and are accountable to them. Courts exist in order to ensure that the laws made by Parliament, and the common law created by the courts themselves, are applied and enforced. That role includes ensuring that the executive branch of government carries out its functions in accordance with the law. In order for the courts to perform that role, people must in principle have unimpeded access to them. Without such access, laws are liable to become a dead letter, the work done by Parliament may be rendered nugatory, and the democratic election of Members of Parliament may become a meaningless charade. That is why the courts do not merely provide a public service like any other.’
Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC, Baroness Hale of Richmond DPSC, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes JJSC
[2017] UKSC 51, [2017] IRLR 911, [2017] HRLR 11, [2017] 4 All ER 903, [2017] 3 WLR 409, [2017] WLR(D) 552, [2018] 1 CMLR 35, [2017] ICR 1037, [2017] 4 Costs LR 721, UKSC 2015/0233
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 20170327 am video, SC 20170327 pm Video, SC 20170328 am Video, SC 20170328 pm Video
Employment Tribunals and Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013 3 4, Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 51
England and Wales
Citing:
At AdmnUnison, Regina (on The Application of) v Lord Chancellor Admn 29-Jul-2013
Renewed application for permission to bring a claim for judicial review of the Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013. . .
At Admn (1)Unison, Regina (on The Application of) v The Lord Chancellor and Another Admn 7-Feb-2014
The claimant challenged the Regulations and Orders charging for the laying of complaints at Employment Tribunals, saying they were mistaken and discriminatory.
Held: The challenge failed. The new Order was not in breach of European Union . .
Appeal FromUnison, Regina (on The Application of) v The Lord Chancellor CA 26-Aug-2015
Unison brought two challenges to rules brought in to impose fees for the bringing of cases in the Employment Tribunal.
Held: The appeals were dismissed. The imposition of a fee would not constitute an interference with the right of effective . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Social Security Ex Parte B and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants CA 27-Jun-1996
The Secretary of State had introduced regulations which excluded the statutory right to payment of ‘urgent case’ benefits for asylum seekers who had not claimed asylum immediately upon arrival, or whose claims for asylum had been rejected, and who . .
CitedImpact v Minister for Agriculture and Food ECJ 15-Apr-2008
ECJ Grand Chamber – Fixed-term employment – Directive 1999/70/EC – Framework agreement on fixed-term work – Abuse through use of successive fixed – term employment contracts – Civil and public servants – . .
CitedStar Storage (Judgment) ECJ 15-Sep-2016
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC – Public procurement – Review procedures – National legislation making the admissibility of appeals against the acts of a contracting authority subject to giving a ‘good . .

Cited by:
CitedMiller, Regina (On the Application Of) v The Prime Minister QBD 11-Sep-2019
Prorogation request was non-justiciable
The claimant sought to challenge the prorogation of Parliament by the Queen at the request of the respondent.
Held: The claim failed: ‘the decision of the Prime Minister to advise Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament is not justiciable . .
CitedMiller, Regina (on the Application of) v The Prime Minister; Cherry QC v Lord Advocate SC 24-Sep-2019
Prerogative act of prorogation was justiciable.
The Prime Minister had prorogued Parliament for a period of five weeks, leaving only a short time for Parliament to debate and act the forthcoming termination of the membership by the UK of the EU. The Scottish Court had decided (Cherry) that the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 March 2021; Ref: scu.591177

Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v Ramanoop: PC 23 Mar 2005

(Trinidad and Tobago) A police officer had unjustifiably roughed up, arrested, taken to the police station and locked up Mr Ramanoop, who now sought constitutional redress, including exemplary damages. He did not claim damages for the nominate torts that had certainly been committed. Counsel for the Attorney General submitted that constitutional redress, in so far as it took the form of an award of damages, should be confined to compensatory damages.
Held: The Board upheld the award of vindicatory damages in respect of the officers serious misbehaviour, though these were not exemplary damages or awarded for any punitive purpose.
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead said: ‘Their Lordships view the matter as follows. Section 14 recognises and affirms the court’s power to award remedies for contravention of chapter I rights and freedoms. This jurisdiction is an integral part of the protection chapter I of the Constitution confers on the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. It is an essential element in the protection intended to be afforded by the Constitution against misuse of state power. Section 14 presupposes that, by exercise of this jurisdiction, the court will be able to afford the wronged citizen effective relief in respect of the state’s violation of a constitutional right. This jurisdiction is separate from and additional to (‘without prejudice to’) all other remedial jurisdiction of the court.
. . When exercising this constitutional jurisdiction the court is concerned to uphold, or vindicate, the constitutional right which has been contravened. A declaration by the court will articulate the fact of the violation, but in most cases more will be required than words. If the person wronged has suffered damage, the court may award him compensation. The comparable common law measure of damages will often be a useful guide in assessing the amount of compensation. But this measure is no more than a guide because the award of compensation under section 14 is discretionary and moreover, the violation of the constitutional right will not always be coterminous with the cause of action at law.
An award of compensation will go some distance towards vindicating the infringed constitutional right. How far it goes will depend on the circumstances, but in principle it may well not suffice. The fact that the right violated was a constitutional right adds an extra dimension to the wrong. An additional award, not necessarily of substantial size, may be needed to reflect the sense of public outrage, emphasise the importance of the constitutional right and the gravity of the breach, and deter further breaches. All these elements have a place in this additional award. ‘Redress’ in section 14 is apt to encompass such an award if the court considers it is required having regard to all the circumstances. Although such an award, where called for, is likely in most cases to cover much the same ground in financial terms as would an award by way of punishment in the strict sense of retribution, punishment in the latter sense is not its object. Accordingly, the expressions ‘punitive damages’ or ‘exemplary damages’ are better avoided as descriptions of this type of additional award . . For these reasons their Lordships are unable to accept the Attorney General’s basic submission that a monetary award under section 14 is confined to an award of compensatory damages in the traditional sense. Bereaux J stated his jurisdiction too narrowly. The matter should be remitted to him, or another judge, to consider whether an additional award of damages of the character described above is appropriate in this case. Their Lordships dismiss this appeal with costs.’
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead
[2005] UKPC 15, [2005] 2 WLR 1324, [2006] 1 AC 328
Bailii, PC
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedHarrikissoon v Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago PC 1980
(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant teacher alleged that he had been transferred from one school to another without proper notice and as punishment. The appellant instead of following a laid out procedure which would have eventually led to a . .

Cited by:
CitedMerson v Cartwright, The Attorney General PC 13-Oct-2005
(Bahamas) The defendant police had appealed the quantum of damages awarded to the claimant for assault and battery and false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, saying that she had been doubly compensated. The claimant now appealed reduction of . .
CitedAshley and Another v Chief Constable of Sussex Police HL 23-Apr-2008
The claimants sought to bring an action for damages after a family member suspected of dealing drugs, was shot by the police. At the time he was naked. The police officer had been acquitted by a criminal court of murder. The chief constable now . .
CitedSubiah v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago PC 3-Nov-2008
(Trinidad and Tobago) The Board considered the extent of damages for infringement of the claimant’s constitutional rights. He had been on board a bus. He complained when a policeman was allowed not to buy a ticket. The same constable arrested him as . .
CitedTakitota v the Attorney General and others PC 18-Mar-2009
(Bahamas) The applicant a tourist had been wrongfully detained in appalling conditions in the Bahamas for over eight years after he lost his documents. He now appealed against an award of $500,000 dollars compensation.
Held: ‘it would not be . .
CitedLumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
CitedTakitota v The Attorney General and Others PC 18-Mar-2009
Bahamas – The claimant appeald as to the amount of compensation awarded to him for his unlawful detention for over eight years, in appalling prison conditions. The Court of Appeal categorised his treatment not only as ‘less than humane’ but as a . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 March 2021; Ref: scu.223876

Imperial Tobacco Ltd, Re Judicial Review: SCS 30 Sep 2010

(Opinion) The petitioner sought review of the 2010 Act, saying that its provisions related to matters reserved to the UK parliament by the 1998 Act, and were therefore outwith the powers granted to the Scottish Parliament.
Held: The petition for judicial review was rejected. None of the appellants’ challenges to the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament to pass sections 1 and 9 of the 2010 Act were well founded.
Lord Bracadale
[2010] ScotCS CSOH – 134, 2010 SLT 1203, 2010 GWD 32-655
Bailii
Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 1(1) 9, Scotland Act 1998 29(1)
Scotland
Cited by:
OpinionImperial Tobacco Ltd v The Lord Advocate SC 12-Dec-2012
The claimant company said that the 2010 Act was outside the competence of the Scottish Parliament insofar as it severely restricted the capacity of those selling cigarettes to display them for sale. They suggested two faults. First, that the subject . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 February 2021; Ref: scu.425209

Walker v Baird and Another: PC 4 Aug 1892

(Newfoundland) A treaty, which does not terminate a state of war, has no legal effect upon the rights and duties of the subjects of the Crown and speaking generally no power resides in the Crown to compel them to obey the provisions of a treaty, or to expel them without supporting legislative authority.
Watson, Hobhouse, Herschell, MacNaghten, Morris, Hannen, Shand LL< Sir Richard Couch
[1892] UKPC 47, [1892] AC 491
Bailii
Commonwealth
Cited by:
CitedMiller and Dos Santos v The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and Others QBD 13-Nov-2016
Article 50 Notice Requires Parliament’s Authority
The applicant challenged a decision by the respondent that he could use Crown prerogative powers to issue a notice under section 50 TUE to initiate the United Kingdom leaving the EU following the referendum under the 2015 Act.
Held: Once the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 February 2021; Ref: scu.417688

Hearing On The Report of The Chief Justice of Gibraltar: PC 12 Nov 2009

Gibraltar
The Board considered a report recommending the removal from Office of the Chief Justice of Gibraltar
Lord Phillips, Lord Hope, Lord Rodger, Lady Hale, Lord Brown,Lord Judge, Lord Clarke
[2009] UKPC 43
Bailii
Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006
England and Wales

Updated: 20 February 2021; Ref: scu.381556

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department Ex Parte Fire Brigades Union and Others: CA 10 Nov 1994

The Home Secretary’s non-statutory scheme for the compensation for criminal injuries was unlawful pending implementation of the Act. It amounted to an abuse of power. He had power to delay implementing the new Act, with no duty to bring it into force, but could not in the interim introduce a scheme which differed radically from the scheme whilst the existing Act remained unrepealed.
Hobhouse LJ said that whether or not a provision becomes part of the law of the United Kingdom depends upon whether and when it comes into force: that is what coming into force means. When a statutory provision becomes part of the law of the United Kingdom depends upon what commencement provision Parliament has enacted.
Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Morritt LJ, Hobhouse LJ dissenting
Times 10-Nov-1994, Independent 10-Nov-1994, [1995] 2 WLR 1
Criminal Justice Act 1988
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department Ex Parte Fire Brigades Union and Others QBD 24-May-1994
The Home Secretary was under no duty to bring the new statutory CICB scheme into force on any particular date. He was free to continue to use his own. The court refused to order a judicial review. . .
CitedAttorney General v De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd HL 10-May-1920
A hotel had been requisitioned during the war for defence purposes. The owner claimed compensation. The AG argued that the liability to pay compensation had been displaced by statute giving the Crown the necessary powers.
Held: There is an . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Fire Brigades Union HL 5-Apr-1995
Parliament had passed the 1988 Act which provided for a new Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. Instead of implementing the Act, the Home Secretary drew up a non-statutory scheme for a tarriff based system by using prerogative powers. The . .
CitedRM v The Scottish Ministers SC 28-Nov-2012
The pursuer was held in a secure mental hospital. When moved to a highersecurity section, he challenged the move. He lost but then was unable to make an apeal as allowed iunder the 2003 Act because the Scottish Parliament had not created the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 February 2021; Ref: scu.87743

Edwards v Cruickshank: 1840

Lord President Hope described the jurisdiction of supreme courts: ‘With regard to our jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction of the supreme courts in every civilized country with which I am acquainted, I have no doubt. They have power to compel every person to perform their duty – persons whether single or corporate; and, in our noble constitution, I maintain – though at first sight it may appear to be a startling proposition – the law can compel the Sovereign himself to do his duty, ay, or restrain him from exceeding his duty. Your Lordships know that the Sovereign never acts by himself, but only through the medium of his ministers or executive servants; and if any duty is refused to be done by any minister in the department over which he presides, or if he exceed his duty to the injury of the subjects, the law gives redress. In England the Court would proceed, according to the nature of the case, by injunction or mandamus, or a writ of quo warranto. In this country a person would proceed by action or by petition; and, if he was right, a decree would be passed and would be enforced by ordinary process of law.’
Lord President Hope
(1840) 3 D 282
Scotland
Cited by:
CitedBancoult, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimants challenged the 2004 Order which prevented their return to their homes on the Chagos Islands. The islanders had been taken off the island to leave it for use as a US airbase. In 2004, the island was no longer needed, and payment had . .
CitedCherry, Reclaiming Motion By Joanna Cherry QC MP and Others v The Advocate General SCS 11-Sep-2019
(First Division, Inner House) The reclaimer challenged dismissal of her claim for review of the recent decision for the prorogation of the Parliament at Westminster.
Held: Reclaim was granted. The absence of reasons allowed the court to infer . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 February 2021; Ref: scu.277177

Lord Gray’s Motion: HL 12 Nov 1999

(Committee for Privileges) The proposed House of Lords Bill which would have the effect of removing the right of Scottish hereditary Lords to sit in the House of Lords was not a breach of the Treaty of Union between England and Scotland. Such Lords were present to represent the nations as a whole, and not just Scotland. The rights of such peers now were derived entirely from the Peerage Act.
Lord Slynn of Hadley
Times 12-Nov-1999, Times 12-Nov-1999, [1999] UKHL 53, 2000 SC (HL) 46, [2000] 2 WLR 664, [2002] 1 AC 124, 2000 SLT 1337
Bailii
Treaty of Union of the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England 1707, Peerage Act 1963, Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017
Scotland
Cited by:
CitedCherry, Reclaiming Motion By Joanna Cherry QC MP and Others v The Advocate General SCS 11-Sep-2019
(First Division, Inner House) The reclaimer challenged dismissal of her claim for review of the recent decision for the prorogation of the Parliament at Westminster.
Held: Reclaim was granted. The absence of reasons allowed the court to infer . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 February 2021; Ref: scu.83208

McClean, Regina (on The Application of) v First Secretary of State and Another: Admn 26 Oct 2017

Challenge to ‘confidence and supply’ agreement between the conservatives and Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland on the basis that it was based upon an unlawful agreement
Sales LJ said: ‘The claimant says that the government had an illegitimate conflict of interest when it made the relevant decisions to enter into the confidence and supply agreement and to announce spending commitments in accordance with it. In my view this is not remotely arguable as a contention of law. In this political context there is no relevant standard of impartiality or disinterestedness which has been breached. The confidence and supply agreement is a political agreement made in a context where some form of political agreement was inevitable and indeed required if a stable government was to be formed. All political parties seek to promote particular interests and particular interested points of view. That is the nature of the political process, and the disciplines to which they are subject are the usual political ones of needing to be able to command majorities in the House of Commons on important votes and of seeking re-election at the appropriate time. The law does not super-impose additional standards which would make the political process unworkable.’
Sales LJ
[2017] EWHC 3174 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedMiller, Regina (On the Application Of) v The Prime Minister QBD 11-Sep-2019
Prorogation request was non-justiciable
The claimant sought to challenge the prorogation of Parliament by the Queen at the request of the respondent.
Held: The claim failed: ‘the decision of the Prime Minister to advise Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament is not justiciable . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 February 2021; Ref: scu.601406

Lewis, Taylor and Mcleod, Brown, Taylor and Shaw v the Attorney General of Jamaica and Another: PC 12 Sep 2000

(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.
Times 11-Oct-2000, [2000] UKPC 35, [2001] 2 AC 50, [2000] 3 WLR 1785
Bailii, PC
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedKanda v Government of the Federation of Malaya PC 2-Apr-1962
A police Inspector had been dismissed on a finding of an offence against discipline. . He complained that he had not been allowed to see the report of the Board of Inquiry which contained prejudicial material and which had been relied upon by the . .
CitedMitchell v WT Grant Company 13-May-1974
(Supreme Court of the USA) Stewart J said: ‘A basic change in the law upon a ground no firmer than a change in our membership invites the popular misconception that this institution is little different from the two political branches of the . .
CitedPlanned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey 29-Jun-1992
(Supreme Court of the USA) The Court discussed the grounds upon which it would depart from precedent and why it would not overrule its equally controversial decision on abortion in Roe v. Wade.
Held: ‘no judicial system could do society’s work . .

Cited by:
CitedHaroon Khan v The State PC 20-Nov-2003
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant had been convicted of felony murder. He was one of four engaged in a robbery, where the victim received fatal injuries.
Held: The felony murder rule had been . .
CitedIn re McKerr (Northern Ireland) HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased had been shot by soldiers of the British Army whilst in a car in Northern Ireland. The car was alleged to have ‘run’ a checkpoint. The claimants said the investigation, now 20 years ago, had been inadequate. The claim was brought under . .
CitedHer Majesty’s Attorney General for Gibraltar v Shimidzu (Berllaque, Intervenor) PC 28-Jun-2005
(Gibraltar) The appellants sought to argue that the failure to allow an acquitted defendant any possible order for costs was a breach of the Constitution.
Held: Section 8 of the Constitution, like its analogue article 6 of the European . .
CitedPurdy, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 30-Jul-2009
Need for Certainty in Scope of Offence
The appellant suffered a severe chronic illness and anticipated that she might want to go to Switzerland to commit suicide. She would need her husband to accompany her, and sought an order requiring the respondent to provide clear guidelines on the . .
CitedRegina v Kansal (2) HL 29-Nov-2001
The prosecutor had lead and relied at trial on evidence obtained by compulsory questioning under the 1986 Act.
Held: In doing so the prosecutor was acting to give effect to section 433.
The decision in Lambert to disallow retrospective . .
CitedMiller, Regina (On the Application Of) v The Prime Minister QBD 11-Sep-2019
Prorogation request was non-justiciable
The claimant sought to challenge the prorogation of Parliament by the Queen at the request of the respondent.
Held: The claim failed: ‘the decision of the Prime Minister to advise Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament is not justiciable . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 February 2021; Ref: scu.159423

Boodhoo, Jagram, (suing on behalf of themselves and the Sanatan Dharma Sudhar Sadha) v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago: PC 1 Apr 2004

PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The complainant said that his constitutional rights had been infringed by the court’s delay. Proceedings had begun in 1987 for redress with regard to a land dispute. There was substantial delay in the appeal, and at one point a judge had died after hearing the application but before he had delivered his judgement. Neither party could afford the necessary rehearing, and nor were they offered financial assistance.
Held: The constitution did not give a right to a hearing within any time frame. When the application was framed as a ‘protection of the law’ issue, the court should look first to the quality of the justice provided, and not its time frame. Different considerations applied for the failure to hand down a judgment as opposed to a failure to provide a hearing. A delay in producing a judgment deprived a party of his right to the protection of the law only where the judge ceased to be able to provide it, or the parties were unable to obtain the necessary benefit. A close definition of what delay was required for an infringement would not be fruitful. In this particular case a delay of 12 months was not unacceptable, and nor did the state deny protection by not providing financial assistance where a new trial became necessary.
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craighead, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
[2004] UKPC 17, Times 09-Apr-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 1689
Bailii, PC
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedGoose v Wilson Sandford and Co and Mainon CA 13-Feb-1998
A judge was properly criticised for failing to write up a judgment when the witness’ evidence was still fresh in his mind. A two year delay required a re-trial.
Peter Gibson LJ explained the potential effect of delay on the formulation and . .
MentionedSookermany v Director of Public Prosecutions 1-May-1996
The Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago dismissed an appeal against refusal of constitutional relief claimed on the ground of undue delay:- ‘As there are admittedly measures available to a trial judge to negative the prejudicial effect on the . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions and others v Tokai and others PC 12-Jun-1996
(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant had been charged in 1981 with offences alleged to have been committed shortly before. The proceedings continued until his appeal for one was dismissed in 1988. The wounding charges were proceeded with only in . .
CitedMaharaj v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (No 2) PC 27-Feb-1978
(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant barrister has been convicted of contempt. The Board had previously found the conviction improper because the basis of the complaint had not been made clear to him. The appellant now sought damages for his . .
CitedCobham v Frett PC 18-Dec-2000
(British Virgin Islands) Two issues arose. First, what was the consequence of inordinate delay between a judge hearing a case and giving his decision, and secondly, how was the law of adverse possession to be applied in cases of interrupted or . .

Cited by:
CitedCampbell v Hamlet (as executrix of Simon Alexander) PC 25-Apr-2005
(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant was an attorney. A complaint was made that he had been given money to buy land, but neither had the land been conveyed nor the money returned. The complaint began in 1988, but final speeches were not heard until . .
CitedBond v Dunster Properties Ltd and Others CA 21-Apr-2011
The defendant appealed against the judge’s findings as to fact delivered some 22 months after the hearing.
Held: The appeal failed. Though such a delay must require the court carefully to investigate the judgment, it did not of itself . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 February 2021; Ref: scu.195698

Marra v De Gregorio C-201/07: ECJ 26 Jun 2008

ECJ Opinion – Privileges And Immunities – Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy)
Maduro AG
[2008] EUECJ C-201/07 – O
Bailii
Cited by:
OpinionMarra v De Gregorio C-201/07 (Privileges And Immunities) ECJ 21-Oct-2008
ECJ Grand Chamber – Reference for a preliminary ruling European Parliament Leaflet issued by a Member of the European Parliament containing insulting remarks – Claim for non-pecuniary damages – Immunity of . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 February 2021; Ref: scu.270543

Marra v De Gregorio C-200/07 (Privileges and Immunities): ECJ 26 Jun 2008

ECJ Opinion – Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy)
Maduro AG
[2008] EUECJ C-200/07 – O
Bailii
Cited by:
OpinionMarra v De Gregorio C-200/07 ECJ 21-Oct-2008
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling European- Parliament – Leaflet issued by a Member of the European Parliament containing insulting remarks Claim for non-pecuniary damages Immunity of Members of the European . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 February 2021; Ref: scu.270542

O’Connor and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Prosecution Service and Another: Admn 4 Nov 2016

Questions about the respective powers of courts and court staff to exclude members of the public from a court building because of a perceived risk that they would cause disruption and about when an unlawful limitation of access deprives a hearing of its public character.
Fulford LJ, Leggatt J
[2016] EWHC 2792 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedStorer v British Gas plc CA 25-Feb-2000
An industrial tribunal hearing conducted behind the locked doors of the chairman’s office was not held in public, even if, in fact, no member of the public was prevented from attending. The obligation to sit in public was fundamental, and the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 February 2021; Ref: scu.571045

Federation of Tour Operators and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs and others: Admn 4 Sep 2007

The claimants complained that the sudden doubling of Airport Passenger Duty was unlawful since it had not been possible to recover this from customers, and was in breach of the Convention.
Held: The claim failed. The cost to the applicants as a whole was approximately pounds 50 million. The tax could only be challenged in a way open to anyone to attack an Act of Parliament, but the applicants had been unable to show that the government had failed to take into account any material consideration, in making the Regulations which covered their members. Nor could they show any sufficient incompatibility either with European law or with Human Rights law. Statements made in Parliament may be admitted in evidence before the courts without their admission contravening the prohibition against questioning or impeaching the parliamentary process.
Stanley Burnton J said: ‘In my judgment, the Speaker’s submissions, and the authorities to which I have referred, demonstrate the importance of identifying the purpose for which evidence of proceedings in Parliament is relied upon. Like Bean J in Bradley, it is the relevance of that material as well as its origin that the Court must consider. It is necessary to consider whether this material would otherwise be admissible on or relevant to the determination of the Claimants’ substantive claims, before deciding whether its origin precludes their adducing it in evidence.’
Stanley Burnton J
[2007] EWHC 2062 (Admin), Times 09-Oct-2007
Bailii
Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation 1944
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedOffice of Government Commerce v Information Commissioner and Another Admn 11-Apr-2008
The Office appealed against decisions ordering it to release information about the gateway reviews for the proposed identity card system, claiming a qualified exemption from disclosure under the 2000 Act.
Held: The decision was set aside for . .
Appeal fromFederation of Tour Operators and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Treasury CA 2-Jul-2008
Appeal against refusal of relief on challenge to introduction of Air Passenger Duty.
Held: The system which did not exempt passengers who had prepaid for their journey did not place an excessive burden on operators. The request failed. . .
CitedChaytor and Others, Regina v CACD 30-Jul-2010
The defendants had been members of the Houses of Commons and of Lords. They faced charges of dishonesty in respect of their expenses claims. They now appealed a finding that they were not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament under . .
CitedKimathi and Others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office QBD 20-Dec-2017
Parliamentary privilege The claimants sought to have admitted as evidence extracts from Hansard in support of their claim for damages arising from historic claims.
Held: The court set out the authorities and made orders as to each element. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 February 2021; Ref: scu.259211

Toussaint v Attorney General of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines: PC 16 Jul 2007

(Saint Vincent and the Grenadines) The claimant complained of the compulsory purchase of his land. He alleged that the compulsory purchase was discriminatory or illegitimate expropriation: an allegation of impropriety. He sought to base this on statements made in parliament.
Held: He was entitled to rely on the Minister’s statement to show what was the true motivation for the compulsory purchase. He was not challenging the truth of what had been stated in parliament.
Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance
[2007] UKPC 48, [2007] 1 WLR 2825
Bailii
Commonwealth
Cited by:
CitedOffice of Government Commerce v Information Commissioner and Another Admn 11-Apr-2008
The Office appealed against decisions ordering it to release information about the gateway reviews for the proposed identity card system, claiming a qualified exemption from disclosure under the 2000 Act.
Held: The decision was set aside for . .
CitedChaytor and Others, Regina v CACD 30-Jul-2010
The defendants had been members of the Houses of Commons and of Lords. They faced charges of dishonesty in respect of their expenses claims. They now appealed a finding that they were not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament under . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 February 2021; Ref: scu.258323

Ingraham and others v Glinton and Another: PC 24 Jul 2006

(the Bahamas ) The Board was asked whether the Supreme Court of the Bahamas has jurisdiction to strike out proceedings brought by way of an application under article 28 of the Constitution of the Bahamas alleging a contravention of the Constitution on the basis that it discloses no reasonable cause of action.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Steyn, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Carswell
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
[2006] UKPC 40, [2007] 1 WLR 1
Bailii

Updated: 30 January 2021; Ref: scu.243386

Bowe (Junior) and Another v The Queen: PC 8 Mar 2006

(Bahamas) The Board considered: ‘(a) the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal (b) the constitutional history in the Bahamas as it differs from that of other Caribbean states and (c) the constitutionality of the executive act of carrying out a mandatory death sentence’.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead,Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
[2006] 1 WLR 1623, [2006] UKPC 10
Bailii
Commonwealth
Cited by:
CitedSimmons and Another v Regina PC 3-Apr-2006
(Bahamas) The appellants challenged admission of confession statements at their trial. A statement was not to be admitted without proof hat it had not been obtained by oppression.
Held: The defendant would have failed in a submission of no . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 January 2021; Ref: scu.238919

Ruddy and others v Procurator Fiscal, Perth and Another; Robertson v Higson: PC 6 Feb 2006

(High Court of Justiciary Scotland)
[2006] UKPC D2, 2006 SLT 478, 2006 SC (PC) 22, 2006 SCCR 151, [2006] HRLR 16, 20 BHRC 179
Bailii
Scotland Act 1998
Scotland
Cited by:
CitedMcInnes v Her Majesty’s Advocate SC 10-Feb-2010
The defendant complained that the prosecution had not disclosed the fact that a prosecution witness had convictions, and that had it been disclosed it would have undermined the prosecution. Other statements taken were not disclosed as had later . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 January 2021; Ref: scu.238744

Oakley Inc v Animal Ltd and others: CA 20 Oct 2005

It was argued that the Secretary of State, when implementing the Directive in the 2001 Regulations, had exceeded his powers in preserving provisions of the Registered Designs Act. The judge had held the Seceretary had exceeded his powers. The Attorney general now criticised the judge for failing to allow for the extent of Parliamentary scrutiny afforded to secondary legislation.
Held: ‘It is the people of the United Kingdom, the electorate, who are entitled to the assurance that laws are normally made by primary legislation and will only exceptionally be amended by secondary legislation. ‘ However, s2(2) of the 1972 Act was sui generis: ‘Unlike other provisions allowing for the amendment of primary legislation by secondary legislation, it flows directly from the Treaty obligations of the United Kingdom. ‘ The obligations identified and incorporated were obligations even though secondary, and were validly incoporated.
Waller LJ said that the primary objective of any secondary legislation under section 2(2) must be to bring into force laws which, under the Treaties, the United Kingdom has agreed to make part of its laws.
Waller, May, Jacob LJJ
[2005] EWCA Civ 1191, Times 07-Nov-2005, [2006] Ch 337
Bailii
EC Directive 98/71/EC, Registered Designs Regulations 2001, European Communities Act 1972 2
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromOakley Inc v Animal Ltd and others PatC 17-Feb-2005
A design for sunglasses was challenged for prior publication. However the law in England differed from that apparently imposed from Europe as to the existence of a 12 month period of grace before applying for registration.
Held: Instruments . .
CitedMcKiernon v Secretary of State for Social Security CA 26-Oct-1989
A statute granting a power to be amended by a subordinate instrument can only do so by an express power: ‘Whether subject to the negative or affirmative resolution procedure, [subordinate legislation] is subject to much briefer, if any, examination . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ex parte Unison 1996
The 1978 Directive required consultation in the case of collective redundancies. Acts had incorrectly incorporated this requirement into English law. The error was corrected in the 1995 Regulations.
Held: Anything is ‘related to’ a Community . .
CitedRegina v Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food Ex Parte Hedley Lomas (Ireland) Ltd ECJ 23-May-1996
The wrongful prevention by a state of the lawful export of animals gave rise to a right to claim for damages.
LMA The UK had refused to grant licences for the export of live sheep to Spain, on the grounds . .
CitedAddison v Denholm Ship Management (UK) Ltd EAT 1997
An issue before the EAT was whether regulations made under section 2(2) of the 1972 Act applied to the crew of a floating hotel/ship in the North Sea.
Held: According to European law the UK could choose whether or not to apply employment . .
CitedEbony Maritime SA and Loten Navigation Co. Ltd v Prefetto della Provincia di Brindisi and others ECJ 27-Feb-1997
Europa It follows from the wording of Articles 9 and 10 of Regulation No 990/93 concerning trade between the European Economic Community and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia that the detention and confiscation . .
See AlsoOakley Inc v Animal Ltd. and others PatC 16-Mar-2005
. .
CitedPerth and Kinross Council v Donaldson and Others 2004
The court considered whether the TUPE regulations in going beyond what was required under the European Directive was invalid.
Held: ‘If it is to be suggested that the 1981 Regulations have effectively allowed the Directive to operate in that . .
Citeddes Gaz SA v Falks Veritas Ltd CA 1974
The court considered for the first time, the effect of the Rome Treaty. It ‘came about because of a tin can’ .
A question requiring the exercise of a judges discretion is to be determined as at the date that the primary judge gave judgment, . .

Cited by:
CitedSlack and Others v Cumbria County Council and Another CA 3-Apr-2009
The court was asked when the six month’s limit for beginning equal pay proceedings began. The new section 2ZA set the qualifying date as ‘the date falling six months after the last day on which the woman was employed in the employment.’ The problem . .
CitedThe United States of America v Nolan SC 21-Oct-2015
Mrs Nolan had been employed at a US airbase. When it closed, and she was made redundant, she complained that the appellant had not consulted properly on the redundancies. The US denied that it had responsibility to consult, and now appealed.
CitedBrent London Borough Council and Others v Risk Management Partners Ltd SC 9-Feb-2011
The council had put out to tender its insurance requirements. The respondent submitted its bid. The council then withdrew the tender in order to take up membership of a mutual company providing such services created by local authorities in London. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 January 2021; Ref: scu.231233

Her Majesty’s Attorney General for Gibraltar v Shimidzu (Berllaque, Intervenor): PC 28 Jun 2005

(Gibraltar) The appellants sought to argue that the failure to allow an acquitted defendant any possible order for costs was a breach of the Constitution.
Held: Section 8 of the Constitution, like its analogue article 6 of the European Convention, seeks to guarantee the procedural fairness of the criminal process. Though the Convention is not part of the law of Gibraltar, its cases are persuasive. Such case law did not establish an obligation to create a power to award a defendant his costs against the prosecutor. There was no unconstitutionality, and therefore no possibility in the court to nullify the law. The appeal failed.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Carswell
[2005] UKPC 26, (2005) 20 BHRC 223, [2005] 1 WLR 3335
Bailii, PC
Commonwealth
Citing:
CitedRegina v Diani 1999
(Gibraltar) The court in Gibralter had no power to award a successful defendant in criminal proceedings his costs. . .
CitedLiubov Ford v Richard Labrador PC 22-May-2003
(Gibraltar) The appellant had failed in an action for defamation, she had been ordered to pay costs as a condition of her continuing the action.
Held: The order was made by the Chief Justice sitting as a judge of the Court of Appeal in an . .
CitedRegina v Dotto 4-Apr-2001
(Supreme Court of Gibraltar) A successful defendant in criminal proceedings is not entitled to any award of costs against the prosecution. . .
CitedGolder v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Feb-1975
G was a prisoner who was refused permission by the Home Secretary to consult a solicitor with a view to bringing libel proceedings against a prison officer. The court construed article 6 of ECHR, which provides that ‘in the determination of his . .
CitedZiegler v Switzerland ECHR 21-Feb-2002
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings . .
CitedLeutscher v The Netherlands ECHR 26-Mar-1996
Lack of jurisdiction (complaint inadmissible); No violation of Art. 6-2 – The Commission distinguished cases in which there has been no acquittal on the merits of the accusation. . .
CitedBeer v Austria ECHR 6-Feb-2001
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention . .
CitedRobins v The United Kingdom ECHR 23-Sep-1997
Over-long delay by court system in settling amount of costs constituted breach of human rights; order made in 1991, not settled till 1995 . .
CitedMinelli v Switzerland ECHR 25-Mar-1983
It was capable of being an infringement of a defendant’s right to a fair trial, to refuse to order payment of his costs after an acquittal in such a manner as to cast doubt on his innocence. ‘In the Court’s judgment, the presumption of innocence . .
CitedSaunders v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Dec-1996
(Grand Chamber) The subsequent use against a defendant in a prosecution, of evidence which had been obtained under compulsion in company insolvency procedures was a convention breach of Art 6. Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the . .
CitedMasson And Van Zon v The Netherlands ECHR 28-Sep-1995
ECHR Judgment (Merits) – Lack of jurisdiction (complaint inadmissible); No violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 13.
The court discussed whether article 6 requires a discretion to be given to . .
CitedLutz v Germany ECHR 25-Aug-1987
Only criminal charges attract the additional protections under article 6(2) and 6(3). Insofar as these provisions apply to ‘everyone charged with a criminal offence’ it is well established in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights . .
CitedLewis, Taylor and Mcleod, Brown, Taylor and Shaw v the Attorney General of Jamaica and Another PC 12-Sep-2000
(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, . .
CitedHaroon Khan v The State PC 20-Nov-2003
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant had been convicted of felony murder. He was one of four engaged in a robbery, where the victim received fatal injuries.
Held: The felony murder rule had been . .
CitedDe Haes and Gijsels v Belgium ECHR 24-Feb-1997
The court emphasised that the press plays an essential role in a democratic society. The court trenchantly observed ‘It is incumbent on the press to impart information and ideas of public interest. Not only does the press have the task of imparting . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 January 2021; Ref: scu.228316

Jackson and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Her Majesty’s Attorney General: Admn 28 Jan 2005

The 2004 Act had been passed without the approval of the House of Lords and under the provisions of the 1911 Act as amended by the 1949 Act. The 1949 Act had used the provisions of the 1911 Act to amend the 1911 Act. The claimant said this meant that the 1949 Act was void, and that anything passed by its means was also void. This would include the 2004 Act. The 1949 Act was delegated legislation, and it was not in the power of the delegatee (the Commons) to amend the power it had been given.
Held: The sovereignty of Parliament is derived form several sources, and lastly the power emanates from a subordinate legislature which, in the absence of an express power, cannot modify or amend the conditions upon which its power to legislate was granted. The 1911 Act changed the balance between the Houses of Parliament. The words of the 1911 Act explicitly allowed it to be used to pass any public Bill, with listed exclusions. Allowing the Preamble to the 1911 Act as an aid to construction did not assist the clamants. ‘the label of delegated legislation is inapposite. . . . the 1911 Act is a special case which arose in a specific context which bore little or no resemblance to delegated legislation as that concept is generally understood. The purpose of the 1911 Act was to change the relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords in the process of enacting legislation ‘ and ‘In my judgment, the correct way to describe the 1911 Act is as a statute which redefined or remodelled the legislature in such a way that there were thenceforth two routes through which Acts of Parliament could be enacted – the traditional way involving the Sovereign, the House of Commons and the House of Lords and the 1911 Act way emanating from the Sovereign and the House of Commons provided that the conditions imposed by the 1911 Act are met.’
As to the third argument ‘there is no established principle applicable to this case which denies a power of amendment of the earlier statute in the absence of the express conferral of one specifically dealing with amendment. What is important is the language of the earlier statute. I do not doubt that it is sufficient to permit amendment in the manner that was achieved by the 1949 Act.’
Collins J, Kay LJ
[2005] EWHC 94 (Admin), Times 31-Jan-2005
Bailii
Hunting Act 2004, Parliament Act 1911, Parliament Act 1949
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedThe Queen v Burah PC 5-Jun-1978
The Board was asked whether Act No. XXII of 1869 of the Indian Legislature was inconsistent with the Indian High Courts Act (24 and 25 Vict. c. 104) or with the Charter of the High Court, or whether it was within the legislative power of the . .
CitedThe Prince’s Case ChD 11-Jan-1606
Parliamentary Roll is Conclusive
A document on the Parliamentary Roll is conclusive as to its validity as an Act if it shows on its face that everything has been done which the common law of the United Kingdom has prescribed for the making of an Act of Parliament – that the Queen, . .
CitedAttorney-General v Prince Earnest Augustus of Hanover HL 1957
‘legislative antecedents’ may in some circumstances constitute relevant background for the interpretation of statutes in pari materia. Words in a preamble cannot of themselves restrict the scope of enacting words, where the latter are wider or more . .
CitedMcCawley v The King PC 8-Mar-1920
The Board was asked whether a Queensland statute authorising the Governor in Council to appoint a judge of the Court of Industrial Arbitration to hold office for seven years, was in fatal conflict with a provision of the 1859 Order in Council and a . .
CitedPepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart HL 26-Nov-1992
Reference to Parliamentary Papers behind Statute
The inspector sought to tax the benefits in kind received by teachers at a private school in having their children educated at the school for free. Having agreed this was a taxable emolument, it was argued as to whether the taxable benefit was the . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and another, ex parte Spath Holme Limited HL 7-Dec-2000
The section in the 1985 Act created a power to prevent rent increases for tenancies of dwelling-houses for purposes including the alleviation of perceived hardship. Accordingly the Secretary of State could issue regulations whose effect was to limit . .
CitedThe Bribery Commissioner v Ranasinghe PC 5-May-1964
S.29 of the Ceylon (Constitution) Order in Council 1946 gave the Ceylon Parliament power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the island. S.29(4) gave it the power to ‘amend or repeal any of the provisions of this Order’; but . .
CitedThoburn v Sunderland City Council etc Admn 18-Feb-2002
Various shopkeepers appealed convictions for breach of regulations requiring food sold by weight to be described in metric amounts. They claimed that the Regulations made under the 1985 Act, to the extent that they were inconsistent with it . .
CitedPickin v British Railways Board HL 30-Jan-1974
Courts Not to Investigate Parliament’s Actions
It was alleged that the respondent had misled Parliament to secure the passing of a private Act. The claimant said that the land taken from him under the Act was no longer required, and that he should be entitled to have it returned.
Held: . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromRegina on the Application of Jackson and others v HM Attorney General CA 16-Feb-2005
The applicant asserted that the 2004 Act was invalid having been passed under the procedure in the 1949 Act, reducing the period by which the House of Lords could delay legislation; the 1949 Act was invalid, being delegated legislation, had used the . .
At First instanceJackson and others v Attorney General HL 13-Oct-2005
The applicant sought to challenge the 2004 Hunting Act, saying that it had been passed under the provisions of the 1949 Parliament Act which was itself an unlawful extension of the powers given by the 1911 Parliament Act to allow the House of . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 January 2021; Ref: scu.222722

Falciola Angelo Spa v Comune Di Pavia: ECJ 26 Jan 1990

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
R-286/88, [1990] EUECJ R-286/88
Bailii
European

Updated: 19 January 2021; Ref: scu.215750

Internationale Handelsgesellschaft Mbh v Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Getreide Und Futtermittel. (Measures Adopted By Institutions ): ECJ 17 Dec 1970

1. The validity of measures adopted by the institutions of the community can only be judged in the light of community law. The law stemming from the treaty, an independent source of law, cannot because of its very nature be overridden by rules of national law, however framed, without being deprived of its character as community law and without the legal basis of the community itself being called in question. Therefore the validity of a community measure or its effct within a member state cannot be affected by allegations that it runs counter to either fundamental rights as formulated by the constitution of that state or the principles of its constitutional structure.
2. Respect for fundamental rights forms an integral part of the general principles of law protected by the court of justice. The protection of such rights, whilst inspired by the constitutional traditions common to the member states, must be ensured within the framework of the structure and objectives of the community. 3. The requirement by the agricultural regulations of the community of import and export licences involving for the licensees an undertaking to effect the proposed transactions under the guarantee of a deposit constitutes a method which is both necessary and appropriate, for the purposes of articles 40 (3) and 43 of the EEC Treaty, to enable the competent authorities to determine in the most effective manner their interventions on the market in cereals. The system of deposits violates no fundamental right.
4. The concept of force majeure adopted by the agricultural regulations is not limited to absolute impossibility but must be understood in the sense of unusual circumstances, outside the control of the importer or exporter, the consequences of which, in spite of the exercise of all due care, could not have been avoided except at the cost of excessive sacrifice.
5. By limiting the cancellation of the undertaking to export and the release of the deposit to cases of force majeure the community legislature adopted a provision which, without imposing an undue burden on importers or exporters, is appropriate for ensuring the normal functioning of the organization of the market in cereals, in the general interest as defined in article 39 of the Treaty.
C-11/70, R-11/70, [1970] EUECJ R-11/70, [1970] EUECJ C-11/70
Bailii, Bailii

Updated: 19 January 2021; Ref: scu.214118

Prasident Ruhrkolec-Verkaufsgesellschaft Mbh, Geitling Ruhrkohlen-Verkaufsgesellschaft Mbh, Mausegatt Ruhrkohlen-Verkaufsgesellschaft Mbh And I. Nold Kg v High Authority Of The European Coal And Steel Community: ECJ 15 Jul 1960

ECJ 1. The court has jurisdiction over the legality of decisions taken by the high authority, but it is not the function of the court to ensure respect for national law in force in a member state, and this is true even of constitutional laws. Therefore the court may neither interpret nor apply national law.
2. Community law, such as it arises under the ecsc treaty, does not contain any general principle, whether explicit or otherwise, guaranteeing the maintenance of vested rights.
3. By article 65 (2), the high authority shall authorize specialization agreements or joint-buying or joint-selling agreements if it finds that the conditions set out in paragraphs 2 (a), (b) and (c) are fulfilled. Such authorization therefore depends on a finding which, of its very nature, comprises an assessment of the situation created by the facts or economic circumstances, and for this reason is partly immune from review by this court. Therefore the high authority has an absolute duty to state specific reasons for these authorizations and this rule must be strictly observed. Those reasons must enable the interested parties, as also the court should occasion arise, to check the information on which the high authority has relied in finding that the requirements necessary for the granting of its authorization are met so as to be in a position to examine whether the authorization was rightly granted as a matter both of fact and of law.
4. The advantages which the selling agencies may derive from trading with the smallest possible number of wholesalers do not constitute a sufficient reason to justify the restriction which is thereby imposed on trade, particularly since the very purpose for which the selling agencies have been created is to take away from the mines the effort involved or organizing the sale of their products on a commercial basis and their function, which is to furnish wholesalers with supplies, constitutes the essential reason for their authorized joint-selling agreement.
C-36/59, C-38/59, [1960] EUECJ C-38/59
Bailii

Updated: 19 January 2021; Ref: scu.213748

Bhagwandeen v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago: PC 17 May 2004

Trinidad and Tobago – The Board was asked whether the Commissioner of Police (the Commissioner) had treated the appellant unequally and/or unfairly and had discriminated against him in refusing to recommend him for promotion from the rank of constable to that of corporal, contrary to section 4(b) and (d) of the Constitution.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell
[2004] UKPC 21
Bailii
Commonwealth

Updated: 13 January 2021; Ref: scu.197089

Coppard v The Commissioners of Customs and Excise, Lord Chancellor intervening: CA 9 Apr 2003

The judge, a circuit judge who had been appointed a judge of the TCC, had adjudicated on the claimant’s case in the High Court in the false belief that the appointment allowed him to do so.
Held: The judge had not wilfully closed his eyes to the law, and his mistake was understandable. On established principle, the judge was a judge de facto. The true logic of the doctrine was not only that the acts were validated but also the office. Accordingly, the judge was a properly constituted court for Article 6 purposes.
[2003] EWCA Civ 631, Times 11-Apr-2003, Gazette 19-Jun-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 511, [2003] QB 1428, [2003] 3 All ER 351, [2003] 2 WLR 1618
Bailii, Bailii
Supreme Court Act 1981 68, European Court of Human Rights 6(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedFawdry and Co (A Firm) v Murfitt CA 14-May-2002
The judge at first instance who was ticketed to sit as a judge in the Technology and Construction Court, had been asked to sit as a judge of the High Court to take this case. The appellant said she was acting outside her powers.
Held: The . .
Grant of leaveCoppard v Customs and Excise CA 5-Nov-2002
Application for leave to appeal out of time – granted. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 January 2021; Ref: scu.180988