A statute should not be given a construction that would impair existing rights personal or in property unless the language in which it is couched requires such a construction. The court considered the presumption that vested rights are not affected without clear wording. The rule in Joseph Suche was to be restricted so that ‘for pending actions to be affected by retrospective legislation, the language of the enactment must be such that no other conclusion is possible than that that was the intention of the legislature.’ Since the potential injustice of interfering with the rights of parties to actual proceedings is particularly obvious, this narrower presumption will be that much harder to displace, but it was displaced in this case.
Citations:
[1980] AC 734
Citing:
Modified – In re Joseph Suche and Co Ltd CA 1875
There is a a presumption, that legislation does not apply to actions which are pending at the time when it comes into force unless the language of the legislation compels the conclusion that Parliament intended that it should. It is ‘a general rule . .
Cited by:
Cited – Wilson 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 lender of its . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Commonwealth, Constitutional
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.184437