Court : House of Lords
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. This appeal raises two questions on the law of libel. The first concerns the entitlement of a trading corporation such as the second respondent to sue and recover damages without pleading or proving special damage. The second concerns the scope and application of what has come to be called Reynolds privilege, an important form of qualified privilege. 2. The appellant is the publisher of The Wall Street Journal Europe, a respected, influential and unsensational newspaper ("the newspaper") carrying serious news about international business, finance and politics. It is edited, published and printed in Brussels for distribution throughout Europe and the Middle East. It shares some editorial and journalistic personnel and facilities with its elder sister in New York, The Wall Street Journal, which has a large circulation in the United States. 3. The respondents, claimants in the proceedings, are Saudi Arabian. The first respondent is a prominent busines...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. This appeal arises out of a number of questions on which the administrators of T and N Ltd sought the directions of the court. On all but one of these questions the answers given by Blackburne J ([2004] 2 All ER (Comm) 28) were not appealed or affirmed by the Court of Appeal ([2005] 2 All ER (Comm) 65) and there is no further appeal. On the remaining question his decision was reversed and the administrators appeal. 2. The relevant facts may be shortly stated. In 2001 T and N appeared likely to become unable to pay its debts because it was faced with a large number of tort claims arising out of the use of asbestos in its products. On 1 October 2001 Hart J, on the company's petition, appointed administrators for purposes including the approval of a corporate voluntary arrangement or scheme of arrangement under section 425 of the Companies Act 1985. 3. The company had the benefit of an asbestos liability policy under which it was entitled to be indemnified again...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. The question in each of these appeals, arising on very different facts, is whether the appellant falls within the familiar definition of "refugee" in article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol. It is common ground in each case that the appellant has a well-founded fear of being persecuted if she were to be returned to her home country, Iran (in the first case) and Sierra Leone (in the second). In each case the appellant is outside the country of her nationality and is unable or, owing to her fear of persecution unwilling, to avail herself of the protection of that country. The only issue in each case is whether the appellant's well-founded fear is of being persecuted "for reasons of … membership of a particular social group". The practical importance of this issue to the appellants is somewhat mitigated by the Secretary of State's acceptance that article 3 of the European Convention on Human ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD My Lords, 1. Legislation operating throughout the United Kingdom sometimes makes provision for appeals to appellate tribunals which, like the legislation itself, operate throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. Similarly with legislation operating throughout Great Britain. Employment, taxation and immigration are instances. In these fields the primary remedy available to a citizen aggrieved by a departmental decision is to appeal against the decision in accordance with the appeal structure set out in the legislation. In the ordinary course that is the route an aggrieved party should follow. 2. Occasionally a citizen wishes to challenge a decision of a tribunal in respect of which he has no right of appeal. He wishes to apply for judicial review of the tribunal's decision. But to which court should he make his application? If the taxation affairs of a Scottish taxpayer are dealt with by a commissioner sitting in England, should the taxpayer apply to the C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. On 8 March 2001 the Court of Justice for the European Communities decided that that United Kingdom revenue law, which had since 1973 allowed companies whose parents were resident in the United Kingdom to elect to pay dividends free of advanced corporation tax ("ACT"), discriminated unlawfully against companies with parents resident in other Member States: Metallgesellschaft Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners (Joined Cases C-397 and C-410/98) [2001] Ch. 620. The exaction of the tax from such companies had been contrary to the EC Treaty and they were entitled to compensation. 2. The forensic fall-out from this decision has been very considerable. Large numbers of subsidiaries of companies resident in other Member States have lodged claims for compensation or restitution, some raising difficult ancillary points of law. The High Court has made a group litigation order to enable these points to be resolved in an orderly fashion. The main point in this appeal conce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Rodger of Earlsferry. I agree that, for the reasons he gives, this appeal should be dismissed. LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE My Lords, 2. Having had the advantage of reading in advance a draft of the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Rodger of Earlsferry I find myself in full agreement with the reasons given by Lord Rodger for dismissing this appeal and there is nothing I can usefully add. LORD RODGER OF EARLSFERRY My Lords, 3. If you go from Motherwell to Wishaw or from Motherwell to Carfin, about a quarter of a mile from the town centre of Motherwell you will see a vast cleared area roughly the size of Monaco, still bearing the scars of its industrial past. It is the site of the former Lanarkshire and Ravenscraig steelworks. Steel production there stopped as long ago as 1992 and since then, while much has been done to decontaminate the land and a sp...
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 Rodger of Earlsferry. For the reasons they give, with which I agree, I would allow this appeal. LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 2. For the reasons given by my noble and learned friends Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, I would also allow this appeal and make the order which they propose. I would also associate myself with the comments of my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 3. The law does what it can to assist local authorities to promote redevelopment where this is in the interests of the proper planning of the areas for which they are responsible. They have been given powers of compulsory purchase which can be used to bring this about where alternative means are not available. But an indication that compulsory powers will be used tends to provoke obje...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Baroness Hale of Richmond. I agree that, for the reasons she gives, this appeal should be allowed. LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 2. I have had the privilege of reading in draft the speech 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. I wish to add only a few comments of my own to what she has said. I do so in view of the importance of the matters that were raised with us in the course of the debate. 3. The question at the heart of this case is, and has always been, whether the father had rights of custody within the meaning of article 5 of the Hague Convention which were breached by the mother when she removed the child to England from Romania in December 2002. In that respect it is no different from all the other cases where the Convention has been invoked to protect chil...
Tag this Judgment!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 Hope of Craighead. I agree with it, and would make the orders which he proposes for the reasons he gives. LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 2. The issue in these proceedings is whether the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 (SI 1988/1199) ("the 1988 Regulations") fully and properly implemented the terms of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p 40) ("the Directive"). The 1988 Regulations were replaced by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/293), which raise exactly the same issue. But the 1999 Regulations apply only to applications lodged on or after 14 March 1999: see regulation 34(2). The application to which these proceeding...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. As explained by my noble and learned friends Lord Carswell and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (to whom I am indebted for their exposition of the relevant facts, the history of the proceedings, the relevant legislation and rules and the authorities), the issue in this appeal is whether discovery of five documents held by the Parades Commission should be ordered for purposes of Mr Tweed's application for judicial review, to the extent that such application turns on a proportionality argument under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights. 2. The disclosure of documents in civil litigation has been recognised throughout the common law world as a valuable means of eliciting the truth and thus of enabling courts to base their decisions on a sure foundation of fact. But the process of disclosure can be costly, time-consuming, oppressive and unnecessary, and neither in Northern Ireland nor in England and Wales have the gene...
Tag this Judgment!