Court : House of Lords
LORD FINLAY L.C. My Lords, the appellant in this case is a naturalized British subject of German birth who has been interned by an order made by the Secretary of State under the powers of reg. 14B, which was made under the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that reg. 14B was not authorized by the Act and was ultra vires. It is beyond all dispute that Parliament has power to authorize the making of such a regulation. The only question is whether on a true construction of the Act it has done so. The relevant part of the Act in question (5 Geo. 5, c. 8) is s. 1, sub-s. 1: "His Majesty in Council has power during the continuance of the present war to issue regulations for securing the public safety and the defence of the realm, and as to the powers and duties for that purpose of the Admiralty and Army Council and of the members of His Majesty's forces and other persons acting in his behalf; and may by such regulations authorise the tri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under Heywood and for the reasons he gives, with which I am in full agreement, I would dismiss this appeal. LORD PHILLIPS OF WORTH MATRAVERS My Lords, 2. I have had the benefit of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood For the reasons that he gives, I too would dismiss this appeal. BARONESS HALE OF RICHMOND My Lords, 3. For the reasons given by my noble and learned friend, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, with which I entirely agree, I too would dismiss this appeal. The answer to the certified question is ‘not in this case'. LORD BROWN OF EATON-UNDER-HEYWOOD My Lords, Introduction 4. The appellant is a 42 year old British citizen, an unemployed computer systems administrator. On 7 October 2004 the respondent government requested his extradition to the United States alleging that be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. The nine appellants before the House challenge a decision of the Court of Appeal (Lord Woolf CJ, Brooke and Chadwick LJJ) made on 25 October 2002 ([2002] EWCA Civ 1502, [2004] QB 335). The Court of Appeal allowed the Home Secretary's appeal against the decision of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Collins J, Kennedy LJ and Mr Ockelton) dated 30 July 2002 and dismissed the appellants' cross-appeals against that decision: [2002] HRLR 1274. 2. Eight of the appellants were certified by the Home Secretary under section 21 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 on 17 or 18 December 2001 and were detained under section 23 of that Act on 19 December 2001. The ninth was certified on 5 February 2002 and detained on 8 February 2002. Two of the eight December detainees exercised their right to leave the United Kingdom: one went to Morocco on 22 December 2001, the other (a French as well as an Algerian citizen) went to France on 13 March 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD SIMONDS My Lords, This appeal, which is brought by May and Baker Ltd., an English Company, and Ciba Ltd., a Swiss Corporation, from the unanimous judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming a judgment of Mr. Justice Jenkins, raises a question of some difficulty. The order of Mr. Justice Jenkins dealt with two matters, (Da petition by the present Respondents, Boots Pure Crug Company Ltd., for the revocation of certain letters patent No. 533,495 which had been granted to the Appellants jointly and (2) a motion by the Appellants that they might be at liberty to amend the specification of those letters patent in the manner which I shall later describe. The learned Judge revoked the letters patent and refused leave to amend. Before the Court of Appeal the only matter in issue was whether the learned Judge had rightly refused leave to amend, the Appellants having conceded that, if that leave was not given, they could not resist revocation. The Court of Appeal (Lord Greene, M.R., and Somer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Upon Report from the Appellate Committee, to whom was referred the Cause Tool Metal Manufacturing Company Limited against Tungsten Electric Company Limited, that the Committee had heard Counsel, as well on Wednesday the 20th, Thursday the 21st, Monday the 25th, Tuesday the 26th, Wednesday the 27th and Thursday the 28th days of April last, as on Monday the 2nd and Tuesday the 3d, days of May last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Tool Metal Manufacturing Company Limited, of 3 The Sanctuary, Westminster, in the County of London, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 29th of March 1954, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the printed Case of Tung...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
The Lord Chancellor MY LORDS, The Will with which we are concerned in this appeal is one in which a public-spirited testator has directed his executors to apply the very substantial residue of his property for such charitable institution or institutions or other charitable or benevolent object or objects in Englandas they should select. The Court of Appeal (Lord Greene M.R., Clauson and Goddard L.JJ.), over-ruling Farwell J. has decided that this is not a valid testamentary disposition. Alter studying the powerful judgment of the Master of the Rolls and weighing the arguments which have been presented to the House, I cannot doubt that a gift expressed in the terms which I have quoted, in the absence of context to vary its prima facie meaning,, is void for uncertainty. The fundamental principle is that the testator must by the terms of his will himself dispose of the property with which the will proposes to deal. With one single exception, he cannot by his will direct executors or trust...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speeches of my noble and learned friends Lord Hoffmann and Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe. For the reasons they give, with which I agree, I would allow this appeal. LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 2. By a deed dated 5 April 1866 Jane Mercer and Lewis Wigan conveyed land in Maidstone to trustees under the terms of the School Sites Act 1841 (4 and 5 Vict, c 38) on trust€” "to permit the said premises and all buildings thereon erected or to be erected to be forever hereafter appropriated and used as and for a school for the education of children and adults of the labouring manufacturing and other poorer classes in the Ecclesiastical District of Saint Philip Maidstone aforesaid and for no other purpose." 3. The deed went on to provide that the school should always be "in union with and conducted according to the principles and in furtherance of the ends and designs of the National Society for promo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD PHILLIPS OF WORTH MATRAVERS My Lords, Introduction 1. These appeals relate to three men whom the Secretary of State for the Home Department wishes to deport on the ground that each is a danger to the national security of the United Kingdom. Each contends that the Secretary of State cannot do so because deportation will infringe his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’). RB and U are Algerian nationals. They contend that deportation to Algeria will infringe their rights under article 3 of the Convention in that it will expose them to a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. Mr Othman is a Jordanian national. He contends that if he is deported he will face a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention, a real risk of a flagrant breach of his right to liberty under article 5 of the Convention and a real risk of a flagrant breach of his right to a fair trial under article ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Baroness Hale of Richmond. I agree with it, and for the reasons she gives I would allow the appeal. LORD WALKER OF GESTINGTHORPE My Lords, 2. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Baroness Hale of Richmond. I agree with it, and for the reasons that she gives I would allow the appeal. BARONESS HALE OF RICHMOND My Lords, 3. The human issue in this case is simple to state. If a child of 16 or 17 who has been thrown out of the family home presents himself to a local children’s services authority and asks to be accommodated by them under section 20 of the Children Act 1989, is it open to that authority instead to arrange for him to be accommodated by the local housing authority under the homelessness provisions of Part VII of the Housing Act 1996? The issue matters, as Rix LJ pointed out in the Court of Appeal, &#...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. Mr Duffy, the appellant, is a member of the Garvaghy Road Residents’ Coalition. He applied for judicial review to challenge the appointment by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 30 November 2005 of two new members of the Parades Commission for Northern Ireland. Those members are Mr David Burrows and Mr Donald Mackay (who has since resigned from the commission). Mr Duffy’s challenge was based on a number of grounds directed to the suitability of Mr Burrows and Mr Mackay to be members of the commission and to the process leading to their appointment. His challenge was upheld, on a limited ground, by Morgan J but was rejected by a majority of the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland (Kerr LCJ and Campbell LJ, Nicholson LJ dissenting) in the judgment now under appeal ([2006] NICA 28, [2007] NI 12). Background 2. The holding of public parades, processions and marches has long been cherished by adherents of both the main traditions...
Tag this Judgment!