The tenant occupied his farm under a lease limiting his use of the farm. He was found to be trading in breach of his covenant and a notice to quit was issued and possession sought. He argued that the 1986 Act was discriminatory and inadequate to protect a farming tenant’s rights and that a declaration of incompatibility under the 1968 Act should be made.
Held: The defendant was not directly affected by the human rights infringement he asserted, but hoped to benefit by a declaration of incompatibility, which would have the effect of protecting him also. A declaration should not be granted in that situation. The notion of victim under the 1998 Act was broad, but still he was not a victim as such under s7(1) of the 1998 Act, and did not have the standing to seek a declaration. It was not the function of the courts to keep the statute books up to date. The grant of a declaration was discretionary, and it was doubtful that the court’s discretion should be exercised in this way.
Lord Woolf CJ spoke of the admissibility of statements made by officials explaining legislation: ‘. . . in so far, as it recounts history which cannot be extracted from the successive Acts, it is relevant and helpful. Such history may properly include issues which had come to the attention of the department of state sponsoring the legislation, for example through correspondence with a representative body’.
Lord Woolf LCJ, Sedley LJ, Gage J
[2005] EWCA Civ 284, Times 05-Apr-1931, [2005] 1 WLR 2668
Bailii
Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, Human Rights Act 1968 4(2) 7(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Her Majesty’s Attorney General ex parte Rusbridger and Another HL 26-Jun-2003
Limit to Declaratory Refilef as to Future Acts
The applicant newspaper editor wanted to campaign for a republican government. Articles were published, and he sought confirmation that he would not be prosecuted under the Act, in the light of the 1998 Act.
Held: Declaratory relief as to the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Tangney v The Governor of HMP Elmley and Another CA 29-Jul-2005
The claimant was a serving a life sentence. During prison disciplinary proceedings he was refused legal and other assistance, and an outside tribunal on the basis that since any finding would not lead to any loss of remission or extra time, his . .
Cited – Baiai and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 10-Apr-2006
The respondent brought in laws restricting marriages between persons subject to immigration control, requiring those seeking non Church of England marriages to first obtain a certificate from the defendant that the marriage was approved. The . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v JN CA 14-May-2008
The Secretary of State appealed against a declaration that paragraph 3(2)(b) of Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the 2004 Act was incompatible with Article 3. The clause was said to restrict the Home Secretary from considering anything beyond the country . .
Cited – Human 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 July 2021; Ref: scu.223632
