Court : House of Lords
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Steyn. I agree with it, and would dismiss the appeal for the reasons which he gives. LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD My Lords, 2. I too would dismiss this appeal. I express no view on the correctness of the interpretation of article III, rule 2 of the Hague and the Hague-Visby rules adopted by Devlin J in Pyrene v Scindia Navigation Co Ltd [1954] 2 QB 402 and by your Lordships' House in GH Renton and Co Ltd v Palmyra Trading Corporation of Panama 1957 AC 149. But for the reasons given by my noble and learned friend Lord Steyn I agree this interpretation should not now be disturbed. LORD STEYN My Lords, 3. This appeal concerns the interpretation of the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules. By article III, r. 2 and 8, they provide as follows: "2. Subject to the provisions of Article IV, the carrier shall properly and carefully load, handle, stow, carry, keep, care for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. Left to myself, I should have accepted the interpretation put by the respondents on the Tomlin order agreed between the parties on 6 April 2001. But no issue of principle on the construction of contracts divides the parties. The Tomlin order is expressed in terms which are one-off. If the appellants' argument on construction is accepted no point of law of general public importance arises. I must acknowledge that the judge adopted the construction favoured by a majority of my noble and learned friends. My own reasons for favouring a different construction differ from those of the Court of Appeal. This being so, no purpose is served by expounding the interpretation which I myself would have put on the Tomlin order, and I am content to accept that favoured by the majority. I would accordingly agree that the appeal should be allowed. LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD My Lords, 2. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speeches of my noble and lear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. At issue in this appeal is the lawfulness of procedures adopted by the British authorities and applied to the six individual appellants at Prague Airport in July 2001. All these appellants are Czech nationals of Romani ethnic origin ("Roma"). All required leave to enter the United Kingdom. All were refused it by British immigration officers temporarily stationed at Prague Airport. Three of these appellants stated that they intended to claim asylum on arrival in the UK. Two gave other reasons for wishing to visit the UK but were in fact intending to claim asylum on arrival. One (HM) gave a reason for wishing to visit the UK which the immigration officer did not accept: she may have been intending to claim asylum on arrival in the UK or she may not. The individual appellants, with the first-named appellant ("the Centre", a non-governmental organisation, based in Budapest, devoted to protection of the rights of Roma in Europe), challenge the procedure...
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 NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD My Lords, 1. This appeal raises a question which has divided courts and commentators throughout the common law world. The division derives essentially from different perceptions of what constitutes injustice in a common form type of medical negligence case. Some believe a remedy is essential and that a principled ground for providing an appropriate remedy can be found. Others are not persuaded. I am in the former camp. 2. This is the type of case under consideration. A patient is suffering from cancer. His prospects are uncertain. He has a 45% chance of recovery. Unfortunately his doctor negligently misdiagnoses his condition as benign. So the necessary treatment is delayed for months. As a result the patient's prospects of recovery become nil or almost nil. Has the patient a claim for damages against the doctor? No, the House was told. The patient could recover damages if his initial prospects of recovery had been more than 50%. But because they were less...
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 Hope of Craighead and Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe. For the reasons they give, with which I agree, I would allow the plaintiffs' appeal and dismiss the bank's cross-appeal. LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 2. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead. For the reasons he gives, with which I agree, I would allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal. LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 3. This is an appeal about the damages to be awarded to the former partners of a business partnership for a breach of contract as a result of which the relationship of that business with its principal customer was terminated. The claim is for the loss of the opportunity to earn further profits from that relationship. It raises issues about the proper approach to remoteness where damages are claimed for breach of co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. These appeals concern the procedure to be followed by the Parole Board when a determinate sentence prisoner, released on licence, seeks to resist subsequent revocation of his licence. The appellants contend that such a prisoner should be offered an oral hearing at which the prisoner can appear and, either on his own behalf or through a legal representative, present his case, unless the prisoner chooses to forgo such a hearing. They base their argument on the common law and on articles 5 and 6 of the European Convention, relying on both the criminal and civil limbs of article 6. The respondent Parole Board accepts that in resolving challenges to revocation of their licences by determinate sentence prisoners it is under a public law duty to act in a procedurally fair manner. It accepts that in some cases, as where there is a disputed issue of fact material to the outcome, procedural fairness may require it to hold an oral hearing at which the issue m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD STEYN My Lords, 1. I have read the opinions of my noble and learned friends Lord Millett and Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe. I agree with their opinions. I would allow the appeal and make the order which Lord Walker proposes. LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 2. I have had the privilege of reading the speeches of my noble and learned friends, Lord Millett and Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe in draft. I too would allow the appeal and make the order which Lord Walker proposes. LORD MILLETT My Lords, 3. The question in this appeal is whether a tax avoidance scheme known as "the flip-flop scheme" or "the two settlement route" to reduce the rate of capital gains tax payable in respect of a chargeable gain succeeded in its object or was struck down by statutory provisions which, at least at first sight, appear designed to counter just such arrangements. 4. Capital gains tax on chargeable gains accruing to an individual is charged at the taxpayer's highest rate of income tax, usually 40%. Tax on charge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speeches of my noble and learned friends Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. For the reasons they give, with which I agree, I would dismiss these appeals. LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 2. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Baroness Hale of Richmond. For the reasons she gives, with which I agree, I would dismiss these appeals. LORD RODGER OF EARLSFERRY My Lords, 3. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speeches to be delivered by my noble and learned friends, Baroness Hale of Richmond and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. I agree with them and would accordingly answer the certified questions as Lady Hale proposes and dismiss the appeals. 4. The provisions of section 21 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 ("the 1999 Act") have the effect that, save in exceptional circumstances, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinions of all my noble and learned friends. For the reasons given by Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, which are substantially those of Lord Steyn also, I too would answer both the certified questions in the affirmative and would accordingly dismiss this appeal. LORD STEYN My Lords, I. The case in a nutshell 2. On the present appeal a point of law of general public importance arises about the principle that the confession of a defendant is inadmissible in a joint criminal case against a co-defendant. 3. What the point is, and how it arises, is best introduced by a simplified description of the real case of murder which in June 2001 came for trial before Judge Hyam, the Recorder of London, and a jury. The trial took place at the Central Criminal Court. Three defendants were charged with murder. All three were indicted as principals. The prosecution case was as follows. The first defendant (Bristow)...
Tag this Judgment!